Oral Answers to Questions

JUSTICE

The  Secretary of State was asked—

Queen's Speech

Barbara Keeley: What steps he plans to take to engage in dialogue with Parliament and the public in seeking their views on the contents of the Queen's Speech.

Jack Straw: In setting out details of the content of the provisional list of Bills for the next parliamentary Session, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement last Wednesday that he intended the Government's initial thinking, formerly private, to be the subject of widespread discussion and debate. Further and full information about the Bills is now available on the Cabinet Office website and in hard copy, from the Vote Office among other sources. We want to hear the views of all parliamentarians, members of the public and interest groups on what we have proposed and what they think should be changed.

Barbara Keeley: May I say how pleased I am to ask the first question of the new team at the Ministry of Justice, and to welcome my right hon. Friend and his team to their new responsibilities? May I also say how much I welcome the news that there will be additional debate and dialogue about the Queen's Speech? Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether that additional debate and dialogue might lead to further proposals or expanded legislation to be included in the draft programme?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations to me and to the other members of my team.
	The whole purpose of consulting people is to take account of others' views. It is always a fact that the legislative programme changes—I know that, having been responsible for it as Leader of the House—but in the past the changes have principally been made in private. Now we want to hear from parliamentarians and members of the public and take account of what is said so that, with luck, the programme will be more in line with the overall opinion of parliamentarians and the public before we publish the final list—or Her Majesty does—in the Queen's Speech in November.

Alan Beith: I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his appointment. May I remind him that the public are well aware that many Acts of Parliament do not fulfil their intended purpose? Will he therefore continue to work with the authorities in both Houses to produce an effective system of post-legislative scrutiny, on which we were working beforehand and which really needs to be brought into play?

Jack Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman—the Chairman of what will shortly become the Select Committee on Justice—for his congratulations, and look forward to working with his Committee in a constructive manner. I agree with him about post-legislative scrutiny. The Law Commission presented some very sensible proposals about it, and subsequently the right hon. Gentleman and other senior Select Committee Chairmen suggested ways in which they should be implemented. I am committed to doing that, as is my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Patrick Cormack: I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and his team, and wish them well in their important task.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House two assurances? First, will he assure us that the Queen's Speech will always take place, and that the Government have no desire to dispense with that important ceremonial occasion? Secondly, if Parliament is truly to be at the centre of the Government's plans, may we have an assurance that not every Bill will be timetabled?

Jack Straw: I give an absolute assurance on the first point. I am the first Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain to sit in the House of Commons—[Hon. Members: "Hear, Hear!"] I think it is time to give a wider audience to the full name. However, I am already in training for my role at the other end of the Corridor in the state opening, which I am told in my incoming brief must continue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an absolute commitment that nothing in our efforts to provide for more consultation of the draft legislative programme will detract in any way from either the formality or the importance of the state opening of Parliament by Her Majesty the Queen which takes place at the beginning of each Session.
	Now I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's second question, and sadly it is not a Freudian slip. [Hon. Members: "Timetabling."] Yes, timetabling. Not every Bill is timetabled, although nowadays most Bills are. I know that that has been a matter of controversy. When I was Chairman of the Modernisation Committee we examined it in some detail, and, as a result of complaints from both sides of the House, although timetabling continues it is now much more relaxed. In most cases knives are not used for Report stages, and the time allocated for both Committee and Report is usually more than is used. However, I understand the importance of the matter, and we keep it under review.

Nick Herbert: I welcome the Lord High Chancellor to his newly expanded post, although since he is responsible for making the Executive more accountable, I hope that in future an hour will be provided for Justice questions.
	The Prime Minister has said that the British people will be consulted on major decisions through citizens' juries. His spokesman has confirmed that the Government's review will consider whether service on such juries should be compulsory. Does the Secretary of State think that the public will welcome being forced to serve on new Labour's focus groups, and what will be the point of them if—as with public protests against hospital closures, or the 1.5 million people who signed the Downing street petition against road pricing—the Government simply ignore the jury's verdict?

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind congratulations, and I congratulate him on becoming the shadow Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and shadow Secretary of State for Justice, which covers an important policy area.
	To begin on an ecumenical note, I regard even an hour of questions as too little for this Department, and for practice for the Opposition. I have already made strong recommendations on the matter to the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House as we recognise that half an hour is not long enough, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that, too.
	On the hon. Gentleman's next question, I have been reading the  West Sussex County Times, which reports him as saying that, so far as he is concerned, there will be a reduction in party political slanging matches. I note the standard that he has set on that.
	Citizens' juries do not, and cannot, work in the same way as juries in real courts; they have to be collaborative. Citizens' juries have been used in my constituency, and the idea behind them is to draw out people's views, not as focus groups, but through a collaborative, discursive approach. They often arrive at interesting conclusions, and the purpose in having them is to take account of what they say.

Human Rights Act

Peter Lilley: What recent representations he has received on the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Jack Straw: Last year, my predecessor as Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, was asked by the Prime Minister to review the implementation of the Human Rights Act. His review was published in July 2006—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has read every page. It concluded that the Act has had no impact on the Government's ability to fight crime, but that it has had a significant and beneficial impact on policy development.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Lord High Chancellor for his answer and welcome him to his post. Has not the decision to enshrine in law the declaration of human rights proved to be an own goal, in that it has limited the power of Government to uphold the rights and security of the people of this country? Is not the underlying problem the fact that rights are not absolutes but need to be balanced against each other, which requires political judgment and common sense, and that that is best left not to lawyers but to Parliament, which developed those human rights in the first place?

Jack Straw: Of course rights have to be balanced by responsibilities, and that is precisely what the European convention on human rights does. As the shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland, has pointed out, it was drafted not by some rabid radical socialist-leaning French or Italian lawyers but by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir, a senior and highly respected member of the Conservative Bench. Its rights are supposed to constrain the power of the state against the individual. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about wishing to withdraw from the European convention or to reduce rights, he must say which rights he wants reduced. Does he want the right to life to be reduced? Does he want the prohibition on torture or the right to a fair trial to be abolished? Does he want the right to marry—I know that he is concerned about such matters—to be cut out, along with respect for private and family life? It is time for Opposition Members to move away from slogan-making and instead put up or be quiet about which aspects of this great convention they wish to be repealed.

Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend say how he plans to extend the protection of the Human Rights Act to those who rely on privatised or contracted-out services not only in care homes but more generally, in order to put right the consequences of the YL case in the other place and to get back to what was originally intended when the Act was passed by this House?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, we left open as a matter for the courts the definition of a public authority to which the Act would apply. I am currently digesting the results of the decision by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, and I will consult my hon. Friend and his Committee about the best way forward.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. As the only previous holder of his office not to be a member of the House of Lords was Sir Thomas More, he has quite an act to follow.
	It is intolerable to members of the public that the courts should, again and again, refuse to deport people, even to places such as Afghanistan into which we have put considerable amounts of blood and treasure to get a grip, because of human rights legislation. The rights of citizens of this country must matter, too.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and the reference to historical precedent, but I would rather not go the same way as Sir Thomas More—although one never knows in this business.
	The provisions of article 3, which require that no one should be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and their interpretation, go back way beyond the introduction and coming into force of the Act. The difficulty arises not under the Act, but under the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case in 1996. The British judiciary are members of the public and they have no interest in seeing terrorists at large, but they do have an interest, because we have asked them to do so—we signed the convention and the Conservatives have supported it—in genuinely ensuring that people are not sent back to be killed or tortured. We cannot do that. The question is one of balance, and we are currently backing actions in the European Court to get it to modify the Chahal judgment, which was made in different circumstances, to provide the courts with greater flexibility.

Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his team on their appointments. I realise that he is new in his post, but I wrote to him on 5 July asking for an urgent meeting to discuss the whole question of Welsh language juries, which is a question of human rights under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Will he please make time to see my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and me before we rise for the summer recess?

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and for giving me some notice of this question. I will of course make arrangements to see him and his colleague before the end of next week.

Keith Vaz: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State for Justice. On 3 July, the Prime Minister made an important statement on constitutional reform, involving the possibility of a new written constitution and a new Bill of Rights. Will he assure the House that any new constitution would be fully compatible with our obligations under human rights legislation, and deal not only with rights but with responsibilities?

Jack Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that we want a debate on whether we should build on, not detract from, the European convention on human rights and what is in the Human Rights Act 1998. We have to get it across, and the Opposition make a fair point, that the Act and the rights themselves have to be balanced by obligations, duties and responsibilities. That is an important part of the debate that my right hon. Friend has now launched.

William Cash: In the light of the answer that the Lord High Chancellor gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), will he note that there are two House of Lords cases, one of which reaffirms the sovereignty of Parliament in relation to the question of the Human Rights Act? It is embedded in the Act. Will he also note that Lord Hoffmann recently said that the questions of the balance between security and human rights should be determined by the Home Secretary because he is required to answer to Parliament? Does he also note that only the other day Lord Carlile said that he thought that there was a case for extending the detention period of 28 days? Will the Secretary of State take note—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jack Straw: First of all, may I say that this is an historic first? This is the first time in the 11 years that I have been answering questions that the very assiduous hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has asked me one and not mentioned Europe—a subject that normally features even in inquiries about drains in his constituency. On the other matter, though, he is absolutely right to say that this Parliament is sovereign. That is embedded in the Human Rights Act, and in our membership of the EU. We can withdraw any time that we wish, but I am against doing so.

John Hemming: The Minister will be aware that the many thousands of parents who are victims of malpractice in the family courts are prevented by law from making representations about the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act. Does he have any proposals to make it possible for such people to make representations about malpractice to Members of Parliament?

Jack Straw: I do not have proposals at this stage, but I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises and I am very happy to meet him and talk about how we deal with the problem.

Nick Herbert: In May, the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), who is in his place, said that human rights legislation needed modernising to protect citizens against terrorism and that, if necessary, the Government would even derogate from article 5 of the European convention on human rights to deal with terrorist suspects who abscond from control orders. Was the previous Home Secretary right, or is the new Lord High Chancellor so wedded to his Human Rights Act that he will not contemplate changes to protect the public from extremists who threaten this country and our way of life?

Jack Straw: There is no difference between me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) on this matter. What we all accept is that the fundamental obligations are embedded in the ECHR. Some sensible modifications to the Human Rights Act are already anticipated in our document "The Governance of Britain", which I am holding up for the House to see. As far as derogation is concerned, it is of course open to us under the convention and the Act itself to derogate, if we judge that that is necessary.

Values Statement

Chris Bryant: What steps he plans to take to consult the public on a British statement of values.

Michael Wills: In the coming months, we will be starting a series of consultations, using a range of formats, to involve the British people in the formulation of the statement and to give them a decisive role in the process.

Chris Bryant: I warmly welcome the Minister to his new post, and his appointment is long overdue. Recent opinion polls suggest that the British public think that the most important British values are a sense of fair play, a respect for minorities and the belief that everyone has the right to say precisely what they think. But has my hon. Friend watched "Little Britain" recently? Does he believe that one of the most important British values is our ability to laugh at ourselves?

Lindsay Hoyle: There's a lot of them in this village, though!

Michael Wills: I am grateful for the first words of welcome uttered by my hon. Friend, although I am not sure of the implication of his final remarks. However, I agree with everything that he has said and pay tribute to his contribution to the last of the British values that he identified. I look forward to his contribution to the consultation.

Robert Key: Our heritage and marine traditions lie at the heart of our British values, so will the Minister note the disappointment, both in the House and beyond it, that neither the heritage Bill nor the marine Bill were included in the preview of the Queen's Speech? Will he and his colleagues reconsider the matter?

Michael Wills: I note the hon. Gentleman's question, and he is very welcome to participate in the consultation. It is precisely for that purpose that we are holding it.

Norman Baker: Is not participatory democracy one of the great British values? Will the Minister recognise that the Government's Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been a great success in that regard? Given that it has caused no problems, will he and the Government consider removing some of the restrictions in the legislation that prevent information from being released?

Michael Wills: I recognise entirely what the hon. Gentleman says. We are proud to have brought in the freedom of information legislation, which is making a substantial and significant contribution to democracy in this country. We are constantly reviewing the way it works, and I am sure that he and I will have further exchanges on that in the future.

Early Release Scheme

Adam Holloway: When he expects the early release of prisoners scheme to end.

David Hanson: The end of custody licence was introduced on 29 June. It is too early to say how long the scheme will be in operation. We are keeping the scheme under review in the light of new prison capacity coming on stream and the review by Lord Carter.

Adam Holloway: If 25,000 prisoners are to be released 18 days early, that will give them an extra 450,000 working days. I wonder what analysis the Minister has done of how criminals will use the additional 10,800,000 hours.

David Hanson: What I hope will be happening is the prevention of reoffending. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the success in preventing reoffending, he will see that the Government have beaten their target, have got more people back into work and are making Britain safer. Crime in his constituency, as in every other constituency in the country, is well down.

George Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major problems leading to the high figures for the prison population has been the complete collapse of confidence in community sentences? Will he have a look at military-style supervision systems for offenders, which might provide some answers about the way forward?

David Hanson: My right hon. Friend is right in the sense that we need to build confidence in community sentences and I will certainly look at the suggestions that he has made. However, under this Government, we have more prison places, more community sentences and less reoffending. That is a record to be proud of.

David Howarth: I note what the Minister says, but he must accept that what lies behind the early release problem is the unprecedented rise in the prison population, which is partly the result of the Government's failure to predict the results of their own policies. I am thinking, for example, of the indefinite public protection sentences. Lying behind that point is a question that relates to the Government's overall policy. Do the Government agree with the statement of the former Prime Minister that the size of the prison population is an indication of the success of the Government's criminal justice policy, or would the Minister now concede what everybody else knows—that it is a sign of its failure?

David Hanson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to see the prison population reduced—by means of both reductions in crime and changes in sentencing policy. I want to see more community sentences, because they have a real effect on preventing reoffending. We have approximately 80,000 people in prison today. I want to see the figure reduced, but we are building more prison places because, inexorably, there will be people who need to be in prison. We need to protect the public and we need to ensure that we have strong community sentences.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend not understand that the victims of crime do not understand why prisoners are being rewarded with early release? Will he look to extending the prison capacity as quickly as possible, but will he also recognise that people with mental health problems may not be in the appropriate place, which will free up some prison places?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend will know that a couple weeks ago we announced an extra 9,500 prison places. He will also know that we have a strong record on preventing reoffending. It will be of interest to him that—in contrast to when the Conservative party was in power—under the Labour Government more people are spending longer in prison. The average was 25.9 months in 2005, compared with 20 months in 1995. We are making sure that prison is an appropriate place for dangerous, sexual and violent offenders and we are ensuring that there are community sentences wherever possible.

Nigel Dodds: May I join others in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to their new positions? Has he had any discussions with the Northern Ireland Office about the impact of the early release scheme for prisoners in Northern Ireland, in terms of the rates of reoffending that occurred there when people were released early and the impact on victims and their families, who saw people released before they had served their due time in prison?

David Hanson: I am in discussion with my colleagues in Northern Ireland. This scheme applies only to England and Wales at the moment. My colleague the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office and I are in constant discussion. Yesterday we had a meeting on how to prevent reoffending in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

Edward Garnier: Is the Minister aware that more than 50 per cent. of prisoners are repeat offenders, that adult and young offenders released from custody are reoffending at rates of 67 and 75 per cent., and that 50 per cent. of offenders do not even get to court, and therefore never have a chance to go to prison? Is that a record he is proud of?

David Hanson: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I share a common objective, which is to reduce the amount of reoffending, and to reduce the number of people in prison. I wish that he would talk to his colleague the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who says that he wants to build more and more prison places and put more and more people in prison, and that he will spend what it takes to do so. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman needs to have a discussion with his right hon. Friend, rather than with me, as we more or less agree on that topic.

Reoffending Rates

Philip Dunne: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending rates.

David Hanson: Reducing reoffending is a key priority for the Ministry of Justice. The National Offender Management Service is committed to reducing reoffending by 10 per cent. by the end of the decade. We will deliver that through our cross-Government strategy to reduce reoffending, and we are supported by the significant increase in investment since 1997.

Philip Dunne: Despite the extraordinary complacent remark made by the Minister in an answer to a previous question, reoffending rates have soared over the past 10 years, and among 18 to 20-year-olds, the reoffending rate is 78 per cent. What will he do to bring down the overcrowding in young offender institutions such as Stoke Heath in Shropshire, which I visited on Monday, which now contains 30 per cent. more young adults than it was built to contain?

David Hanson: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should look at the figures for the past 10 years. The Labour Government set a target to reduce reoffending by 5 per cent., but we have increased that target to nearly 7 per cent. In his own constituency, thanks to investment made by the Labour Government in those 10 years, crime is down by 22 per cent. I will certainly consider the issues of overcrowding in prisons and young offender institutions, but I will not take any lessons from his party; when it was in government, crime rose.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Martin Salter: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 July.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our profound condolences to the family and friends of Guardsman Daryl Hickey of 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan last week. He died doing vital work in the service of our country. We owe him, and others who have lost their lives, a deep debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings today.

Martin Salter: With eight out of 10 prisoners in some prisons testing positive for class A drugs, the Prime Minister will be acutely aware of how drugs and drug addiction are fuelling crime in our constituencies. However, will he also acknowledge that many of us are concerned that people who suffer from multiple sclerosis and other debilitating conditions have been waiting since 2001 for the cannabis-based medicine Sativex to be licensed for use in the UK, as it is in Canada? Is it not about time that we had a drugs policy that does not criminalise the sick, but tackles the drugs that do the most harm?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I would like to pay tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of MS sufferers in all parts of the country. The use of the drug Sativex is now under review by the medical authorities. I can also say to him that next week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will publish a consultation document to review our drugs strategy for the future. She will be asking the public to comment on new ways in which we can improve drugs education in this country, give support to people undergoing treatment—we have doubled the numbers in treatment, but we need to do more—and give support to communities that want to chase out drug dealers. As part of that consultation—the Cabinet discussed this yesterday—the Home Secretary will consult on whether it is right that cannabis should be moved from class C to class B.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Daryl Hickey, who was killed in Afghanistan on Thursday. He died serving our country.
	Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister started letting prisoners out of jail early under his early release scheme. Can he tell us how many prisoners have been let out, and how many of them were convicted of violent offences?

Gordon Brown: The figures were given to the House on Monday by the Secretary of State for Justice. I think it is true to say that around 1,700 people were released. It is also true to say that they included nobody who was serving a sentence for a serious violent offence, nobody who was subject to the registration requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, nobody who had previously escaped from custody, nobody who had breached temporary release conditions and nobody currently serving a sentence for failing to return after temporary release. All those conditions, and others, meant that people were not released.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister needs a new briefer. Three hundred and forty-four of those criminals were convicted of violent offences. Those are the facts. What the Prime Minister has effectively said means that 25,000 prisoners will be released early this year, all from a Government who told us that they would be tough on crime. It has been alleged that there are cases where police and probation staff objected to the release of individual criminals because of the risk that they posed, but they were overruled. Has that happened?

Gordon Brown: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. We said at the time that when we released people early—and remember, it was 18 days early, not a year, not six months, not nine months, but 18 days early—nobody who was serving a sentence for a serious violent offence would be released. We made it absolutely clear at the time, and it is disingenuous for the Leader of the Opposition now to come back and say the opposite. On any individual cases of probation that he raises, I assure him that the Justice Secretary will investigate, but let us remember that we also announced at the time—and the Conservative party must tell us what its views are on this— [Interruption.] Oh yes. We also announced at the time that we had increased the number of prison places by another 1,800. That is on top of the extra 8,000 places, which means that we have increased the number of prison places in this country from 60,000 to 90,000. We have provided resources for 140,000 police and 16,000 community support officers. At no time have the Opposition said that they would match us in the resources that we are providing.

David Cameron: Those 344 criminals who were released had been convicted of violent offences, such as violence against the person. Is the Prime Minister saying that he does not think that is serious? On whether police and probation staff have been overruled, Harry Fletcher, one of the leaders of the National Association of Probation Officers, said that in many cases probation and prisons staff— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

David Cameron: He said that in many cases probation and prisons staff objected to the release of violent criminals but they had been overruled. Why did not the Prime Minister know about that?

Gordon Brown: I have said to the right hon. Gentleman that I will ask the Justice Secretary to write to him on the matter of individual cases, but the terms on which people were released were made very clear at the time. Prisoners serving a sentence for serious violent offences, sex offences, escaping custody, breaching temporary release—we listed the 15 conditions that would not allow people to be released, and it is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to come back and say that we have broken the word that we gave to the House of Commons.

David Cameron: So the Prime Minister had no idea that prison staff and probation staff were being overruled and that criminals were being released on to our streets when those staff thought that they posed a real risk. That is the truth. Some of the criminals who have been released went on to commit further offences. What would the Prime Minister say to the victims of those criminals who were released early?

Gordon Brown: I have investigated what has happened as a result of the Home Secretary's statement on Monday. Everybody who was released was released after debate within the Prison Service and the probation service about what should happen, and it is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Ministers did not listen to any discussion that took place.  [Interruption.] On the issues of future policy that he raises, I come back to tell him— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be heard as well.

Gordon Brown: I come back to what I said. On Monday, the Home Secretary made a statement and listed the number of people who had been released, then listed the number of people who had been recalled. Many people who have been recalled have come back as a result. I understand that less than 1 per cent. of those who have been released have been recalled, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the figures are very low.

David Cameron: So that's it. The Prime Minister has nothing to say to the victims of the prisoners whom he released early. The very least that they should expect is an apology from the Prime Minister. He says that discussions go on about whether those criminals should be released. He does not know what is going on. The probation circular sent to the probation service states on page 2:
	"The Probation Service is not required to conduct a risk assessment or an accommodation check prior to a prisoner's release".
	He does not know what is going on in his prisons. The Government told us repeatedly that the scheme would be a temporary measure. Can the Prime Minister confirm that it definitely will not become a permanent part of our criminal justice system?

Gordon Brown: We will continue to review it. Early release is not something that happened just under the Labour Government—it happened on two major occasions under the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman raises the question of the individual assessment. Each person who was released was assessed against the criteria that I have read out to him. As for anybody who has committed any offences, yes, I regret it if anything has happened, but let us look at the evidence that is before us before we draw conclusions, as he is trying to do. The new announcement that we made a few weeks ago was that we were building more prison places. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would support that. The new announcement that we made in recent months was that we are going to increase community policing. There are now going to be neighbourhood policing units in every town and city of England. He should be supporting that. Unfortunately, his shadow Chancellor says that there is no more money for law and order. That is the position of the Conservative party.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister does not know what is going on in the prisons and he does not even know what his own Ministers are saying. Last week, the Lord Chancellor said that this could become a permanent feature of the criminal justice system. This Prime Minister does not know who is being released, does not know whether they are violent offenders, cannot tell us whether probation officers have been overruled, does not know how many crimes have been committed, will not apologise to the victims of those crimes, and will not tell us how long this scheme will last. Is it not the case that when it comes to this Government and law and order, it is the same old broken promises, the same old incompetence, and the same old Labour?

Gordon Brown: This from the party under which crime doubled, the party under which the number of police officers fell, and the party whose shadow Chancellor has said— [ Interruption . ] They should listen to what the shadow Chancellor is telling them. He said:
	"lots of Conservatives...come up to me and say we've really got to put more money into"—
	this and that—
	"we need more soldiers, we need more police, and so on. Now those are all very good things but they do cost money and part of our discipline, part of the test of whether we are ready for government is whether we can resist these additional draws on public expenditure".
	That is the Conservative party—all talk, no real policy. He said he was the future once, and all he can do is talk about the past.  [ I nterruption . ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Helen Southworth: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if he will meet children's charities that work with children who run away or go missing from home or care so that we can find out how we can better protect those children from harm?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken up the case of the hundreds of runaway children who, during the course of the year, go missing and cannot be found, and the fact that we do not have properly co-ordinated services to do so. I agree that we should encourage all local authorities to take this more seriously, and we need a national system by which we can find missing children. I look forward to meeting children's charities, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families will do in future, to talk about this very grave problem.

Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister's expression of sympathy and condolence?
	Yesterday's Rowntree report confirmed that the gap between the rich and the poor is as wide as it has been for 40 years. How does the Prime Minister propose to deal with that unfairness?

Gordon Brown: I do not accept this. What has happened in the past few years is that the number of people taken out of poverty as a result of the policies of this Government has risen very substantially. While child poverty trebled under the previous Conservative Government, it is coming down now. While pensioner poverty was very high, it is coming down now. I accept that in every advanced industrial country inequality is a major issue, but I have to read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what Professor Danny Dorling, the co-author of the report said:
	"we...looked at the groups who were...the poorest of the poor...that group had actually reduced in size in the last ten years and it also became less geographically concentrated. And that almost certainly is due to Government policies."

Menzies Campbell: There are people earning less than £18,500 who now pay more tax as a result of the Prime Minister's last Budget. Why does not he close the loophole for the very rich that he has created and use that money to cut tax for low and middle-income families? Why not legislate for the many, not the few?

Gordon Brown: The one thing that would happen to people earning less than £18,500 under Liberal party policies is that they would be worse off. The reason for that is that each one of all the major measures we have taken—the new deal, tax credits and the child trust fund—was opposed by the Liberal party.

David Taylor: . The political situation in Darfur is too fragile, and the humanitarian crisis too dire, to contemplate any further delays in deploying the hybrid peacekeeping force. Will the Prime Minister tell the House the approach he will deploy at the United Nations to show whether our Government have the spirit and soul to lead a global campaign to extirpate the spreading moral stain that threatens utterly to engulf this region of Africa?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has taken a major interest in Darfur, and he will know that the International Development Secretary is in Darfur at the moment looking at the situation on the ground. As a result of the conflict in Darfur, 200,000 people have died. There are 2 million people who are homeless and displaced as a result of it, and 4 million people who would starve but for food aid.
	It is urgent that the international community reach an agreement on the appropriate response. We are sponsoring a United Nations resolution to bring an African Union and UN force into the region as quickly as possible. I believe that, even before that force arrives, there should be a cessation of violence on the ground, and the President has a responsibility for making that happen. We would then be prepared to give emergency economic aid so that the people of this area are given the chance of a better livelihood, but we are prepared to take further sanctions against the Government and people in that regime if they do not cease the violence, stop the militias and make sure that people have a decent living standard in a region that for too long has suffered from poverty, famine and war.

Ann Widdecombe: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will personally take time out of this busy day, first, to confirm that it is still the policy of his Government, as it has been of previous Governments, not to deport people to countries that have the death penalty, and in which they are in danger from the death penalty? Is he aware that in nine hours, this country is going to deport a Christian lady, Samar Razavi, who apostasised in Iran and fled that country? She is under a death warrant from Iran, but has been refused asylum. I do not ask him to comment on asylum; will he please look at the case with an urgent view to intervention?

Gordon Brown: Of course, I will look at the case that the right hon. Lady has brought to me—we shall look at it in detail immediately. I have to say to her that it is our policy not to deport to countries where torture is being practised. We are trying to sign new agreements with individual countries where they will guarantee to repatriate people, but on the condition that there will be no torture. We have signed three agreements already, and there are many more that we wish to sign and we will try to move this matter forward. I hope that the right hon. Lady will give us all the details today so that we can follow it up.

Chris Ruane: Yesterday, I held an Adjournment debate on the coroner's report into the tragic death of four cyclists from Rhyl cycling club in January 2006. The coroner made some strong recommendations. What measures can the Prime Minister take to ensure a complete review of how police call centres handle ice-related accidents and of cross-border co-operation between local authority gritting departments. What measures can he take to ensure that legal advisers, solicitors and insurance companies cannot deliberately prolong and frustrate coroners' inquiries and that there is a review into why the Crown Prosecution Service did not take action against the driver in this terrible accident?

Gordon Brown: I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the families of the four cyclists who were killed in this tragic accident, which took place in January 2006. I want to pay tribute to the dignity with which those families have conducted themselves following this terrible event. It was on 27 June that the coroner raised a number of very serious concerns about what had happened, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that I will look into each of these with my ministerial colleagues. I understand that the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who has responsibility for policing, has already agreed to meet him and the families, and I was informed this morning that the Minister has also asked to meet the lead police officer for roads policing to discuss how the lessons highlighted by the coroner can best be learned. It is incumbent on us all, when a serious accident has caused such loss of life, to investigate all the circumstances and see what lessons we can learn.

Mark Prisk: Over the past year, one third of all small shopkeepers have been violently attacked, often by baseball bats and knives. As the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) asked earlier, how can letting out thousands of prisoners early help those people? Do not those shopkeepers, who serve all our constituents, deserve better after 10 years of this Government?

Gordon Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the length of sentences for people who are convicted of those crimes has been increased. That is one of the reasons why more people are in prison, even after crime has fallen. He should know that the number of people in prison has risen from 60,000 to nearly 80,000, and that the number of prison places will increase to 90,000 in the next few years. We are increasing not only the sentences inflicted on people who commit those crimes but the prison places available. Again, I hope that he will support us, as we have increased the number of police and community support officers so that we have neighbourhood policing that enables the shopkeepers that he mentioned—and all residents—to be properly protected.

Helen Jones: The Government's policy of helping lone parents get into work has assisted thousands of families in constituencies such as mine to get out of poverty. However, for many, child care remains expensive and many employers are still reluctant to allow flexible working. What further steps will the Prime Minister take to help those parents who are trying to give their families a better life by getting off benefits and into work?

Gordon Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend's work in her constituency will be repaid by the announcement that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is about to make. It has always been our intention to get more lone parents into work, providing them with the child care and training facilities that are necessary for them to do that.
	Since 1997, the number of lone parents in work has been raised by more than 200,000—it has gone from 43 per cent. to 57 per cent. of all lone parents. In the next few years, we can make enormous progress, in partnership with employers. Today, I met a group of employers, especially from the retail sector, including all the major names—ASDA, Sainsbury, Marks and Spencer, B&Q—that wish to employ lone parents and others who are currently on the inactive register. They are prepared to give them training and support into work; we are prepared to help through the new deal for lone parents. It means that we will reduce the age at which benefit is claimed by lone parents for young children who go to school and it will be claimed as a separate benefit from income support. It also means that there are huge opportunities—perhaps 250,000—in addition to existing provision for lone parents and others to get into work.

Royal Navy

Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the planned size of the Royal Navy's frigate and destroyer fleet.

Gordon Brown: As we said in the White Paper that was published in July 2004, the Navy will operate a fleet of 25 destroyers and frigates. Investment in the Navy has increased from £780 million for capital equipment to £1.3 billion this year, with new investment of £6 billion planned in the next three years.

Julian Lewis: In 2004, the then First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West, now a Minister in the Prime Minister's Administration, criticised the Government for abandoning their promise in the strategic defence review to keep 32 frigates and destroyers and reducing the total to only 25. He described that as piling risk on risk. Will the Prime Minister now guarantee that there will be no further reductions from the total of 25 frigates and destroyers?

Gordon Brown: Since those announcements, we have announced the biggest programme of investment in our Navy for future years. The hon. Gentleman knows that £6 billion of investment in the next three years is a major commitment to our Navy. We look forward to making an announcement soon on the future of aircraft carriers. I believe that we are fulfilling our commitment to create a modern Navy for the future.
	I just repeat the shadow Chancellor's comments:
	"there are lots of Conservatives who... say we've... got to put more money into... our armed forces... part of the test of whether we're ready for government is whether we can resist those additional draws on public expenditure".
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) had better talk to the shadow Chancellor first.

Ian Davidson: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not necessary to have a referendum before ordering two aircraft—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a closed question. I called the hon. Gentleman because Fairfield shipyard is in his constituency. He should ask about the carriers, not a referendum.

Ian Davidson: As I was saying, does the Prime Minister agree that it is not necessary to have a referendum before ordering two aircraft carriers? Does he also agree that this is the forum in which an announcement should be made, with his allies—I admit that some are only recent—behind him, and, in front of him, not opponents, but potential recruits?

Gordon Brown: I am glad that my hon. Friend describes himself as an ally. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement soon on the aircraft carriers, but our commitment to future naval investment in this country is very high indeed. I believe that the future of the Navy is best safeguarded by the levels of investment that we are putting in, and I am glad that he agrees with me that there is no need for a referendum on any issue at the moment.

Engagements

Henry Bellingham: Many of my constituents will be somewhat concerned about the Prime Minister's equivocal remarks about early release, which will probably now become a permanent feature of our criminal justice system. Was Harry Fletcher correct to point out that senior probation officers were overruled on early release decisions? Whom should one trust most: loyal, hard-working probation officers and servants of the Crown or Ministers obsessed with spin?

Gordon Brown: I have already said that the decision about early release on individuals was made against very specific criteria that were set down to the House of Commons. I repeat to the House that no prisoner who was serving a sentence for a serious violent offence was released. That was not part of the criteria that were followed. Nobody serving for a serious violent offence was released.

Neil Turner: My right hon. Friend might have noticed gaps in the Chamber last week, as hon. Members from all parts of the House played a game of tag rugby with rugby league greats, the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby Football League, to support the British Asian Rugby Association in its work to bring people from all minorities into the community through participation in sport. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Ikram Butt, Heather Taylor, who is not a teacher, and all those connected with BARA on the work that they do in bringing together people of all creeds and minorities through sport to make a cohesive community in our country?

Gordon Brown: I welcome the co-operation between the Asian and British Rugby associations. I also understand that my hon. Friend has been asked to be the sports ambassador for rugby league, and I welcome him to his new post. Participation in sport helps to promote community cohesion and we will do everything to support it, even if voices off are not.

Vincent Cable: As the principal architect of the public-private partnership for London Underground, can the Prime Minister explain how £500 million was spent on lawyers and consultants to create a construction that has now collapsed, leaving the British taxpayer with £3.5 billion of bank loans and considerable uncertainty about the future of public transport in the capital?

Gordon Brown: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If Metronet pulls out, another company will be found to take its place, and another company will be found alongside the tube company that is the other private-sector company involved in the consortium. What the hon. Gentleman should remember is that we are engaged in one of the biggest civil engineering projects that has ever been undertaken in London. We are increasing the number of people using the tube from 1 billion a year to 1.5 billion a year. We are talking about a £17 billion investment that would always be done by private construction and engineering firms. We are committed as a Government to do something that the Conservative party is not prepared to do, and that is to provide £1 billion a year of extra money for investment in the tube. The number of stations already refurbished, the number of additional trains and the number of projects under way show our commitment to investment in the London Underground. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in that project.

Mr. Speaker: I call Bob Marshall-Andrews.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Very helpful, thank you. The Government have recently decreed that Parliamentary Private Secretaries will sit on Select Committees. Parliamentary Private Secretaries are de facto part of the Executive, and Select Committees, at least in part, are intended to scrutinise that Executive. The conflict is obvious and apparent. How does that accord with the welcome and noble sentiments that my right hon. Friend expressed two weeks ago on the independence of Parliament?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is raising an important issue, and I am sorry if we are going to lose his services in the next Parliament. He is referring to the role of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but they will not sit on the departmental Select Committees for which they are Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I can give him that assurance.

Philip Davies: According to official figures, more than 1,500 prisoners have Sky television in their own cells, five prisons have swimming pools for prisoners' use and two thirds of prisoners have keys to their own cells. Is the Prime Minister proud of that and what is he going doing to do about it?

Gordon Brown: We have increased sentences for those who commit the worst crimes. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are nearly 10,000 people in prison who are under indeterminate sentences as a result of the toughening of punishment. That is why we have raised the number of prison places from 60,000 to 80,000 and they will go up to 90,000 in the next few years. We are honouring our commitment to deal harshly with people who commit crimes.

Jim Devine: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the performance and behaviour of Greenbelt, a ground maintenance company that provides services to tens of thousands of homes throughout the UK? It charges up to £400 per household and provides little or no service. It is Farepak for homeowners. Last week, its lawyers sent a threatening letter to me and my constituent, Paula Hoogerbrugge. Paula, a single mum, has been monitoring the company's behaviour on a national basis. The lawyer also contacted her employers with a threat to silence her or get her sacked. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that behaviour?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for that information and I will look into the matter that my hon. Friend raises.

Anne Main: In 2004, when the Prime Minister was Chancellor, a budget of £20 million for 2006-07 and £40 million for 2007-08 was announced for the drug treatment and testing programme in prisons. Since then, it has been cut to £12 million and £12.7 million respectively. Now that he is Prime Minister, will he consider revising those back to the original figures?

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the hon. Lady that since we took office there has been a big increase in the amount of drug treatment in prisons, which will continue in the next spending round.

Full Employment

Peter Hain: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on today's Green Paper, "In work, better off: next steps to full employment". Ten years of progress under this Government have transformed work and opportunity in Britain. We have seen the longest and most sustained period of economic growth for over 200 years, the fastest falling child poverty in Europe and the highest employment in our country's history.
	Today, the achievement of full employment and the eradication of child poverty are seen no longer as simply aspirational rallying calls, but as real targets that people expect to be delivered in our generation. But to achieve them, especially at a time when the global forces of economic and demographic change present new and ever greater challenges for our economy and labour market, will require a step change in our reforms.
	We must reignite the jobs crusade that started in 1997 and renew the partnership between Government, employers and individuals by focusing now on those who remain furthest from the labour market and on those whose potential is untapped—on the 3 million people of working age who have been on benefit for over a year, many on incapacity benefits; on lone parents and ethnic minority groups still without the right support to work; on 16 and 17-year-olds not in education, employment or training; and on those remaining pockets of poverty and worklessness concentrated in some of our major cities, yet often close to thriving labour markets and great prosperity.
	I said that we needed a step change to tackle these entrenched problems and today's Green Paper delivers it, based as it is on values and principles that go back to Beveridge and Attlee, and on to our new deal. I refer to the belief in equality and opportunity and in rights and responsibilities; to the principle of work for those who can and support for those who cannot; to the idea of working in partnership with employers; and to the belief that an active, progressive welfare system should provide people with the skills that employers need to fill some of the 600,000 vacancies that come up in our labour market each month.
	The reforms will build on our progress with the national roll-out of pathways to work. They will see the development of support that is ever more personalised and responsive to the needs of individuals. They will focus on job retention and progression, not just on job entry. They will devolve power to local areas by incentivising local solutions and making the best possible use of expertise across the public, private and voluntary sectors.
	We propose, first and foremost, a renewed partnership with employers to ensure that those on welfare applying for jobs have both the skills and the work attitudes that employers need, underpinned by a new jobs pledge aimed at finding opportunities for 250,000 people currently on benefit. Building on the cutting-edge local employment partnerships announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Budget earlier this year, major employers—in both the public and private sectors—have given a commitment to offer guaranteed job interviews for people who have been on benefit and who are ready and prepared to work. Employers will ensure that such people can compete more effectively for vacancies and have the support then to progress within the workplace, adding to last month's employer skills pledge in which 150 leading employers made a public and voluntary commitment to train all their staff to level 2 in the workplace. This will be a two-way process, however, and through the new local employment partnerships, individuals on benefit will be expected to do all that they can to help themselves prepare for work.
	Our second area of reform will be to introduce a more personalised, flexible and responsive new deal, with a more integrated approach to skills and wider support for the family, but matched by new responsibilities for jobseekers to do all that they can to help themselves. Those facing particularly severe barriers to work will now get fast-tracked help, while others who have a history of long-term benefit dependency could face tougher responsibilities from the start of their claim. There will be an earlier and more focused assessment of the skills needs of those who are out of work, to inform the development of a back-to-work plan. Agreed activities will be mandatory, however, with clear sanctions for failure to comply.
	Eradicating child poverty lies at the heart of the Green Paper. Following the recommendations of Lisa Harker's report last year, we are already changing Jobcentre Plus systems and targets to ensure that the delivery of our employment programmes is more family-focused. We are introducing mandatory work-focused interviews every six months for partners of jobseeker's allowance recipients with children. As with lone parents, work offers a powerful route out of poverty for many of those families.
	For lone parents, we will introduce a new social contract which promotes the value of work as the best route to tackle child poverty. We know that the children of lone parents in work are more than five times more likely to be in poverty than the children of lone parents in full-time employment, and that they are three times more likely to be in poverty than the children of lone parents in part-time work. Given our record investment in improving the quality and supply of child care, together with measures to ensure that work pays, lone parents will be expected to make an eventual move into the labour market in return for new and more personalised support.
	From October next year, lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 and over will no longer be entitled to income support simply because they are a lone parent. Instead, supported by the new job opportunities made available by the local employment partnerships, they will be eligible to claim jobseeker's allowance, on which they would be expected to look for suitable work in return for personalised help and support. Because we are serious about tackling child poverty, we intend that the relevant age be reduced further to seven from October 2010, backed up by the local availability of high-quality wrap-around child care.
	Finally, building on the Freud report, this Green Paper makes greater use of expertise across the private, public and voluntary sectors at both national and local level. Private and voluntary sector providers already play a crucial role in delivering programmes, such as employment zones and the new deal, and we intend to build on that. After 12 months on jobseeker's allowance, or in some cases probably even sooner, we will move customers to a specialist return-to-work provider, who will offer an intensive outcome-focused service, funded on the basis of results; we will push forward with a City strategy, offering local consortiums of providers new funding and flexibilities in return for outcome-based payments; and we will pilot an approach where providers who are successful in moving people into sustained employment are rewarded with increased funds to invest in further activity.
	The publication of our proposals today will start a 15-week consultation process. We encourage contributions from both sides of the House and from all those who share our commitment to delivering full employment in Britain. The contrast with 1997 could not be greater: then, record unemployment and the worst child poverty in Europe; today, 2.6 million more people in jobs, more women, more lone parents and more disabled people in work than ever before, and already 600,000 children lifted out of poverty. We must now rise further to the challenge of going further.
	The Green Paper lays the foundation for the eradication of child poverty; it builds on the progress that we have made in extending the right to work to all; and in reaching out to the hardest to help, it aims to offer true social mobility and social justice for every individual. I commend it to the House.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for observing the usual courtesies in providing me with an advance copy of the statement. What a shame it is, though, that he did not observe the courtesies that were promised to the House when the new Prime Minister took over less than three weeks ago. We were told then that major policy announcements would be made in the House and not the media, as you have so often demanded, Mr. Speaker, so let me start by asking the Secretary of State why details of the statement were on BBC breakfast television this morning. Is this just a one-man rebellion by the Secretary of State against his new leader, or is it just that the promises made by our new Prime Minister have a shelf-life of only a fortnight?
	The statement contains much that all of us can agree on. That is hardly surprising, as parts of it, such as the changed approach for lone parents, are things that we have already argued for—but with this Government, nothing is ever quite what it seems. For a start, there is a distinct feeling of déjà vu in all of this. This is the Government's 11th announcement in 10 years about getting people off benefits and back into work. The last Green Paper was published less than 18 months ago. At that time, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), was scathing about the Government's record. She said:
	"I think that the whole system has left people languishing on benefit... We need to provide the infrastructure of support that helps people break down their barriers and enables them to exercise their rights. So far we have done sweet nothing."
	Well, it is now a little over a year later, and what has happened? I think that the House would agree, to judge from today's employment statistics, that the answer is still sweet nothing.
	The number of single parents stuck on benefits is barely changed on a year ago. According to the Secretary of State's own figures, 7.93 million people of working age in this country are economically inactive, and that figure is rising, as is youth unemployment. The Government's response is to publish yet another Green Paper—another set of headlines to try to reassure people that Ministers are actually trying to do something, while in the real world too many people are being left behind in our society.
	Last year, the Government asked David Freud, chief executive of the Portland Trust, to make recommendations about how to tackle the blight of economic inactivity in this country. His report sets out a radical agenda for change in the way that we help people off benefits and into work. The last Secretary of State said of the report, back in March:
	"David Freud's report presents a compelling case for future reform."
	We agree with him, but the new Prime Minister clearly does not. He gave David Freud short shrift when they met. In April, a leaked letter from the then Chief Secretary said:
	"As the chancellor made clear, it is not possible to develop or pilot a new funding model in the immediate future".
	So much for the Government making real use of external advice, or the former Chancellor's big tent. It is obvious that while the Prime Minister is perfectly happy to get in external advice to help him with public relations, he clearly has absolutely no intention of actually using that advice. Let me ask the Secretary of State why the Prime Minister has ordered so much of the Freud report to be watered down. How much extra funding does he really have to implement these changes?
	The truth is that after 10 years of broken promises on welfare reform, we still have more than 750,000 lone parents on benefits. We have far more—16 per cent. more—young people who are not in education, employment or training than in 1997, despite all the billions of pounds that the Government have spent on the new deal. Today's figures show that youth unemployment is getting worse. Despite years of promises, we still have more people on incapacity benefit than in 1997. The Secretary of State talked about falling child poverty, but I put it to him that his Department's statistics show that the figures for child poverty in the UK have been rising over the past year.
	Neither this Government nor this Prime Minister have shown any sign of being able to get to grips with these problems. Their solution is always to launch yet another consultation, yet another Green Paper, yet more legislation and yet more initiatives, but they never actually get the job done. The truth is that we face a massive social challenge in Britain today. After 10 years in office, there is no real sign that the Government have any idea of what to do about it.

Peter Hain: I could not disagree more strongly with the rhetorical end to the hon. Gentleman's response. First, let me say that I gave no interviews before making this statement to the House. The details about the publication of the Green Paper have been given to the House before anyone else—certainly the media—has received them. Many of the details that appeared in bits and pieces in the media this morning were wrong.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to trumpet today's fantastic employment figures, which show record employment, unemployment down, and the number of people on benefits falling. Since he probed me, let me remind him of the figures. Employment is now at more than 29 million, which is 93,000 up on the quarter and 180,000 up on the year. International Labour Organisation-measured unemployment is down. The jobseeker's allowance numbers are down by 91,000, and the number of people on incapacity benefits is down by 38,000, which can be compared with the miserable record under the Tories when it kept rising. The number is now at its lowest level for more than seven years. The number for lone parents is down by 3,000 on the previous year. There are now 317,000 more lone parents in work than there were when we came to power in 1997. I will happily talk about our record any time that the hon. Gentleman likes, including in relation to today's very good employment figures.
	The hon. Gentleman made some points about youth unemployment, although they were not specific. Actually, youth unemployment has been all but eradicated —[ Interruption. ] However, as I identified in my statement—this is also identified in the Green Paper—there is an issue in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds who are not necessarily in training, education or work. They need more intensive support, and that is precisely what we are offering them in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills so that they are given the opportunity of gaining skills and jobs in the future.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about our response to the Freud report. I would have thought that he would welcome our response—I would not be surprised if the report's author welcomed our response as well. Let us look at the detail. The report recommended a change to the way in which we encourage lone parents into work. We have agreed and taken that change forward. A change was recommended on using the more specialist expertise that is available in the private and voluntary sectors, as well as the public sector. After 12 months, we have adopted that approach. In some cases, we did so before 12 months, as I said in my statement —[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is heckling me, but if he had listened carefully, he would know that in some cases that can take place before the 12-month period.
	We have not gone for the big, regional private monopoly provider, because there was a strong response from stakeholders participating in the Freud report consultation that suggested that that was not necessarily the preferred model. Many private sector providers objected to a single regional monopoly provider, because if it failed the whole region would fail with it, so they said that we ought to look at provision in a more flexible way. This is a consultation document: we want to deliver the programmes and to get the best possible support for those who need and want to come off benefit and into work. That is available in the private sector—we want to take advantage of that—but it is available, too, in other ways.
	The statement and the Green Paper are a response, too, to the important report by Lisa Harker on child poverty, to the Leitch report on skills, and to the important report by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. We are not just responding to the Freud report, although it is important and will inform our work in future.

Terry Rooney: Earlier, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State referred to the social contract for 250,000 jobs, but as I understand it, a large slice of those jobs is in the retail sector, which has an employee turnover rate of about 25 per cent., rising to 34 per cent. at Sainsbury. That programme needs to be revisited if it is to be sustainable. As for child poverty, more than 300,000 children are not living with their parents for whatever reason, but with other family members. The system does not cater for them at all, and very little assistance is offered to their supporting families, but it is a serious child poverty problem.

Peter Hain: As ever, my hon. Friend, who has authority and expertise in this area and who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, has raised some important issues. The issue of the 300,000 children is important, and we should like to work with him and his colleagues to try to make sure that we can get that right, because there is an important problem to overcome and a challenge to meet.
	On the question of the retail sector in local employment partnerships, the Prime Minister and I, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, met a number of employers this morning at No. 10 Downing street who represent more than 30 companies that have signed up to our local employment partnerships so far—the number is increasing all the time. They included important national retailers such as Debenhams, Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury's, as well as Network Rail, security companies and other organisations that have signed up to the partnership with Government.
	It is true—this was one of the points made by the retailers' representatives this morning—that retailers tend to have a high turnover, partly because they attract many students at certain times, such as the pre-Christmas period. However, they find that when they can get someone through Jobcentre Plus—off benefits, in many cases—such people tend to stay. Working with us is therefore attractive, as it will help to make sure that many of those individuals have the opportunity and dignity that comes with work, and receive the support, including child care in the case of parents, that enables them to work, which they have not been able to do in the past.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. Does he agree that, despite suggestions that all parties are interested in this agenda, it is astonishing that the official Opposition refused the opportunity to repeat the statement in the other place?
	We share the Secretary of State's objective of ending child poverty, but is he not aware that child poverty has gone up in the past year, not down? Is he not aware that the employment rate has gone down in the past year, not up, and that it is no higher now than it was at the peak of the last economic cycle? Is he not aware that inequality is rising, not falling?
	We welcome David Freud's proposals to move the benefit rules for lone parents closer to those in the rest of the European Union, but does the Secretary of State agree that he must address, too, the huge problem of child care availability which is the major barrier to work for that group? Is it not very hasty indeed to go further to the age of seven without addressing those child care issues and without allowing time for a proper evaluation of the reduction to the age of 12?
	The Government must tackle the shameful fact that after 10 years in office 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit have still not received the help that they need. We welcome the long-overdue focus on building relationships with employers, but David Freud's most significant contribution was on the funding of welfare support to the hardest-to-help groups through three-year contracts. Does the Secretary of State agree that such long-term funding is essential to enable the private and voluntary sectors, which he rightly praised, to deliver for those groups? Will he confirm that the Treasury objected to the long-term funding model proposed by Freud, and that without that funding it will be much harder to provide the personal support into work for those people who need and want that help most?
	Freud made it clear in his review that the byzantine complexity of our benefits system is a major disincentive to work. He is right. Why will the Government not move faster towards his recommendation of a single system of working-age benefits? What steps has the Secretary of State taken to implement Freud's proposals that Jobcentre Plus should become a one-stop shop for all benefits and tax credits? Britain today is disfigured by inequality and by concentrations of worklessness. By watering down Freud's key recommendations in a Green Paper that took longer to write than Freud took to write his own report, today's statement misses a huge opportunity to deliver extra help to those people who need it most.

Peter Hain: To pick up the hon. Gentleman's last point on the simplification of the benefits system, we are still considering the best way forward, as it is an important issue. However, there are many difficult problems. David Freud explored the notion of a single benefit system, and found that none of the options was straightforward—something that the hon. Gentleman did not mention. A recent paper by the Institute of Public Policy Research highlighted the costs of a single benefit system. We are still looking at the proposal, but we must proceed with a great deal of care.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about long-term funding. Obviously, there is a comprehensive spending review time frame, but clearly we want more certainty, which is why we are looking at the way in which we provide contracts so that they can take into account such things and are outcome-focused, too. We should not just provide people with a contract and that is it: it should be more outcome and results-focused—a point that is made, he will agree, by the Freud report, and one of the many points that we have picked up.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's point about child care, I am not sure that he listened carefully to what I had to say. As I provided him with a copy of my statement, he might have checked it out in advance. We are linking the measure, especially for lone parents, for whom we start to bring the age down to seven years old by October 2010, to the availability of child care. If we reach the targets that we have set, there will be pre-school and after-school child care arrangements, and high-quality wrap-around child care. The child tax credit system is important, and there is more support for children and child care than ever before in the history of this country.
	This is about providing lone parents with an opportunity that many of them crave and want, so we need support arrangements to enable them to take advantage of that opportunity and lift themselves and their children out of the poverty in which far too many of them are still stuck. The truth is that we have lifted people out of poverty in greater millions in recent times, and certainly compared with the previous Government. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. We have made a start on tackling inequality by that route, and we have provided, too, the highest level of employment ever in the history of this country.

Danny Alexander: What about the rate?

Peter Hain: The truth is that more people have come on to the labour market in the past year than ever before, yet employment has still been rising, and unemployment is still falling —[ Interruption. ] I do not mind the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) heckling me—he is welcome to do so—but he should compare our record as a Government, which is a proud record on employment, with his miserable record on employment, especially in areas outside the south-east where unemployment was steep and long-term and many people disappeared on to the dole, never to have any hope or prospect of a job. That is the record that we are now seeking to replace and improve. There are big challenges ahead, which is why the Green Paper signposts the way to meet them.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend will know that employment in the northern region was decimated under the Conservative party. He will also know that the new deal introduced by our Government has enabled 240,000 people to find work in the region. However, we still have a problem: we have under-employment, a skills gap and a percentage of people who are still registered unemployed.
	During the consultation, will the Department be prepared to accept information from organisations such as Blind People's Voice—whose programme Visage helps blind and partially sighted people into work—and TTP, which is highly successful in providing employment for skilled people in Teesside? Will my right hon. Friend also bear it in mind that many thousands of people in the northern region still feel thoroughly unconfident? We need a new deal programme that will encourage young and middle-aged people to believe that they have talents, and that we want to see them in employment.

Peter Hain: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a statement, and we must have supplementary questions, not speeches. That sounded too much like a speech.

Peter Hain: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. As one who represents a part of south Wales with much of the same legacy of the terrible Tory years, I know that we must continue to tackle it.
	We will work with my hon. Friend, and with everyone who wants to work with us in all parts of the House, to try to make this programme work. We certainly intend to conduct our consultation on a regional basis, and I hope that my hon. Friend will work with us in the northern region. We also intend to work with organisations such as Blind People's Voice and TTP. It is important that we get the programme right.
	I remind the House that there are still big challenges to be met. There are still 4.5 million people on benefit, many of whom want to work and have the potential to do so. If we are to reach the 80 per cent. employment target that we have set to make our economy truly globally competitive for the future, realising that ambition will require 1 million fewer claimants on incapacity benefit, and 300,000 more lone parents and 1 million more older people in work. That is our ambition: not to go backwards into a failed Tory past, but to provide a successful future for Britain under Labour.

John Penrose: May I press the Secretary of State a little further on his proposal to end the entitlement to income support of lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 or over simply because they are lone parents? I suspect many people understand that there is a natural change of gear when a child enters secondary school that may provide more time for parents to find jobs, but why do the Government propose to lower the age to seven, when there is no such natural change of gear? What is the thinking behind the age of seven, rather than six, eight or some other age?

Peter Hain: This is an opportunity programme, not a "big stick" programme. As I have said, under this Government there are over 300,000 more lone parents in work than in the past. They are doing better than ever before, and they have been able to lift their children out of poverty as well as taking for themselves all the advantages and dignity that come with work.
	In our judgment, moving the age to seven—given the correct child support arrangements, along with support for parents that enables them to work in a way that protects their own interests and those of their children—presents a big opportunity. The point is that most of those people want to work. I think that provided that the circumstances are right, and—as we made clear in the Green Paper—provided that child care support is available, from 8 am pre-school to 6 pm post-school, lone parents who wish to work when their children reach the age of seven should be given the opportunity to do so. They should then move not from income support to nothing, but from income support to jobseeker's allowance. That will give them a chance to make progress in a work-based environment, with regular interviews and all the opportunities that that brings.

Tom Levitt: I welcome my right hon. Friend's localised and personalised approach. It has proved effective in pathways to work pilot schemes around the country, especially in helping people off incapacity benefit and into work. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that whereas large voluntary sector organisations may well have the infrastructure and capacity to deliver such programmes in partnership with the Government and others, we should not lose sight of what small voluntary sector organisations can offer, particularly in local areas? Will he ensure that they are not squeezed out of the system?

Peter Hain: I will certainly do that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many small voluntary organisations, especially in local areas, know their areas well, and often harness local people's potential, expertise and commitment to their communities. Far from being squeezed out, they should have more opportunities as a result of our approach, which—generally after 12 months, and in some cases earlier—will give them a greater stake in making progress and thus helping many more people into work.

Hywel Williams: The Secretary of State is right to stress that child care is crucial to the age reductions to 12 and seven, but he will know that it is often a problem in rural areas, especially when the market has failed and the private sector simply cannot provide. What steps will he take to ensure that rural areas are given particular attention before the age reductions come into force?

Peter Hain: Child care places—places in children's centres, or pre-school or after-school places—are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as in mine. We intend to work closely with that Government, and with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives, although in Northern Ireland employment programmes are not covered by the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Rural areas do suffer from problems such as those that the hon. Gentleman has described. We need to proceed carefully. The extra obligations that will apply to those coming off incapacity benefit, or income support in the case of lone parents, must be matched with opportunities—and, for those with young children, child care support, so that they can work in the way that they wish while ensuring that their children are looked after properly.
	Flexible working is important to lone parents in particular. We were told this morning by the large retailers, including Sainsbury, that their tremendously variable hours were ideal for lone parents, even at weekends when family support is generally more available.

Frank Field: I assure the Secretary of State that there will be considerable support for his proposals, at least on this side of the House. Does he not admit, however, that in the light of the Government's record creation of new jobs since 1997, the movement from benefit to work has been modest, to put it mildly? During the past three years 2 million people have come to this country, practically all of them to work, yet the number moving from benefit to work is minor. Does the Secretary of State think that he can achieve his employment target if we continue an open-borders policy?

Peter Hain: I do not think that we have an open-borders policy. The interesting truth is that although over the past year a significant number of people, mostly from central and eastern European countries, have come to work in Britain—often bringing skills with them—the claimant count has fallen. The two elements are therefore not necessarily at odds with each other. However, in the new work environment and given the challenges that I described earlier—the need to achieve an 80 per cent. employment rate, and the number of people whom we need to take off benefit—we must continue our efforts. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend's views, and to his assistance.

Nicholas Winterton: I share the Government's wish to return the work-inactive to work and their interest in doing so, but I am just as concerned about those who are currently losing their jobs. In my constituency, AstraZeneca, the international pharmaceutical business, is shedding 700 manufacturing jobs over the next three years, and Capital One is closing entirely its home loan brokerage business, mainly because of global competition, high costs and increased regulation. I know that the Secretary of State is concerned about such matters, so will he seek to do something about increased regulation and business costs, which are forcing companies to close and people to lose jobs?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has long taken a close interest in manufacturing not only in his constituency, but generally. Of course, any closures are regrettable. I do not wish to make a party point, but it is a fact that when there were job losses in the 1980s and early 1990s people were just thrown on to benefit, whereas nowadays Jobcentre Plus ensures that there is a rapid response to any closure and that we work with the employers and individuals involved, and in most cases almost everyone finds a new job as a result. That is what is needed in respect of the cases the hon. Gentleman mentions.
	Over the past 10 years, when we have been in office, although globalisation pressures have intensified, increasing numbers of people have been entering new jobs and gaining new skills, supported by our employment programmes. Therefore, we can offer employment optimism for the future, despite the closures and job losses that inevitably occur, given competitive pressures.

Jeff Ennis: I am sure that most Members support the Green Paper's general thrust of working towards achieving full employment, but I have a question about how single parents with children over the age of 12 will be dealt with under the proposals. Many single parents in my constituency perform a dual role, in that they also look after elderly parents. That is particularly prevalent in former mining areas because of the legacy of that industry. Do the Government intend to make single parents who also care for elderly relatives seek work?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important point, with which I am familiar as I, too, represent a constituency that is largely a former mining area—in a few places it is still a mining area. Such areas face particular problems, such as high levels of incapacity benefit owing to industrial injury and the need to care for elderly parents, which is often performed by single parents. We must and will have personalised responses; it is made clear in the Green Paper that that will be a cornerstone of our policy. There will not be a universal application of a rigid programme, but instead we will look at each person as an individual and make sure that they have the support they need. Many of them might not be able to work, perhaps for the reasons my hon. Friend describes, and support will continue to be provided while they are on benefit. However, we will assist those who can work to do so.

Steve Webb: Becoming a lone parent—perhaps after a difficult separation—can be traumatic for both parent and children. Will a new single parent, who might be feeling bereaved after a separation, within days also feel pressured to seek work when they should instead be spending time with their children, who will also be feeling the bereavement of separation? How flexible will the system be? Will such single parents from day one feel under pressure, or even suffer benefit sanctions, if they do not go straight out to look for a job?

Peter Hain: There will be no question of sanctions applying from day one, especially in such circumstances. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to put that on the record. When, for example, a father suddenly leaves or a parent dies, the lone parent's primary desire will be to look after the children, who will need special support and help at such times. Jobcentre Plus and the wider programme will ensure that those wishes and needs are met. I genuinely want such issues to be fed into the consultation by the hon. Gentleman and others—although we have anticipated the specific point he raises—so that we ensure we get the programme right.
	Our programme is ambitious. It must be an opportunity programme. It will not seek to force lone parents with young children to go into work under any circumstances. The children's interests must be paramount, as must fighting child poverty. We can get the programme right, but that requires there to be a much more personalised form of support than previously.

George Mudie: Financed by windfall utility taxes, in the first four years of the Labour Government unemployment in my constituency was halved. However, in the last six years as the funds have run out the unemployment level has stayed the same and is now rising. I will warmly welcome the statement and the Green Paper if the new ideas and initiatives are backed up with new finance. Without that, nothing will change. Will the Secretary of State confirm that new money will be available to finance the new initiatives?

Peter Hain: I recognise what my hon. Friend says, especially in respect of cities. In cities such as London and Leeds there are still pockets of poverty and worklessness, sometimes cheek by jowl with very high house prices and many jobs and great prosperity. We must tailor programmes to reach those who are not benefiting from the general prosperity. However, let me add to my hon. Friend that every day 4,000 jobs are delivered through Jobcentre Plus and that there are more than 600,000 vacancies in Britain at any one time. I do not claim that they are all in his constituency—they evidently are not. We need to make sure that we provide the support that he wants.

Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State said that he wants to have a system of support that is
	"ever more personalised and responsive to the needs of individuals",
	which I welcome. However, is that aspiration compatible with his Department's proposal to close the Christchurch Jobcentre Plus office? The Secretary of State might know that a petition signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 Christchurch citizens has been presented to the House. Will he receive a deputation led by me from the local authority and people of Christchurch in order to try to establish some sort of partnership and to achieve the objectives set out in the Green Paper, instead of closing its Jobcentre Plus office?

Peter Hain: The Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform will be happy to receive a delegation seeking to take forward the hon. Gentleman's campaign. I understand his position. I have received representations from many hon. Friends on such local issues, and they are difficult to solve. We have been trying to take resources from back office Jobcentre Plus functions to ensure that we get the maximum resources to the front line. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, personalised support is essential if we are to meet the challenge of getting people, many of whom have been on long-term benefits, into the world of work—if they are able to enter it.

Gavin Strang: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the Green Paper, and he is right to remind Members that we have the highest employment in our history. We certainly should support the free movement of labour throughout the enlarged European Union and the great migration of workers from central and eastern Europe to this country, as it helps us achieve faster economic growth. Is he aware, however, of there being any evidence that that will make it harder to drive down unemployment among certain social groups in our society? Will he also tell us whether some of our major banks and insurance companies are among the major employers who have agreed to interview people who have been unemployed for a long time?

Peter Hain: We are embarking on a more radical approach to employment generation and enabling people to move into work—I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes that—for the very reasons that he gives. I know that he has been concerned about the issue, and the local employer partnerships will be concentrated on getting long-term benefit claimants into work. The focus is not those people who come out of a job, go on to benefits for a short time and then go back into work, but those who have been out of work for a long time. That is one reason why we will require lone parents to seek work once their child reaches the age of seven: the longer lone parents are out of work, the more difficult it is to create the environment in which they can return to work. We will work closely with everybody and I welcome any views that my right hon. Friend wishes to express.

Sammy Wilson: I also welcome the Government's attempt to tackle the hard edge of the unemployment problem. It appears that two approaches will be adopted. The first is the emphasis on the private sector in providing skills, guaranteeing interviews and, indeed, guaranteeing 250,000 jobs. Is the Secretary of State assured that the private sector has the capacity to do that, and that the capacity is located at the hard edge and in the same places as the bulk of those affected? Secondly, given the public commitment to a flexible new deal approach and the wrap-around care provision, what public resources will be devoted to that?
	The Secretary of State will know that Northern Ireland is one of the areas with a big problem with long-term unemployment. What plans does he have for discussions with the Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Employment and Learning to ensure that some of these ideas are passed on?

Peter Hain: We would be happy to discuss those matters. When I was responsible for the area, I was well aware of the points that he raises, although—as the hon. Gentleman will know—Northern Ireland now has more jobs and lower levels of unemployment than ever before, and is well on the way to being where it should be as a successfully performing area. I would be happy to work with the Ministers he mentions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about capacity in the private sector. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Prime Minister met large employers at No. 10 this morning, it was noticeable that they were keen to engage. Many, if not all, of them are already engaged, but they are keen to reach out because they have a large number of vacancies. They include—I do not know the detail, but I know that they are keen to help in Northern Ireland as well—Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury, which all see huge opportunities.
	As for flexible child care and other support mechanisms, it will be for the devolved Executive to deliver, but we want to work closely with them and co-operate in whatever way we can.

Joan Humble: I welcome the new personalised service that my right hon. Friend has mentioned and his reassurances that the system developed out of the Green Paper will be applied sensitively and flexibly. Will he therefore consider the special circumstances of lone parents with a child or children with disability? As their children get older, the accessibility of child care and other support mechanisms is much worse. Indeed, as those children move into adulthood, even lone parents who have been in work find that they can no longer work because the support services simply are not available. Will my right hon. Friend consider their special needs?

Peter Hain: I will happily do so, and I am keen to work with my hon. Friend, who heads the every disabled child matters group. I hope that she will give us the benefit of her ideas. The system will be geared to individual needs and will be very personalised. We must recognise that for everyone family life is just as important as working life. This is not about focusing on getting a job, but about the idea that getting a job will help to strengthen family life. That will need to be individually tailored and individual needs will be taken into account. The proposals are about choice and independence. For most lone parents, the opportunity of a decently paid job is a liberating experience, because the state is then no longer responsible for them. They are responsible for themselves and have the dignity and opportunity to offer support to their children that come with that.

Alan Reid: The Secretary of State talked earlier about getting more staff to the front line, and I agree with the need to do so. However, in my constituency, his Department is making two members of staff compulsorily redundant in the small job centre in Campbeltown, and three more jobs are threatened, which would almost halve the number of staff. Does he not realise that local staff possess local knowledge, which is important when giving advice and support to local people? Instead of centralising the service in big call centres such as Clydebank, the Government should keep the work locally. Will the Secretary of State alter the policy of shifting jobs from small towns such as Campbeltown to big call centres such as Clydebank?

Peter Hain: There is a distinction between call centre work and front line delivery in Jobcentre Plus offices. As I said earlier, we have tried to get more resources to the front line, where staff with local knowledge are very important. That will remain a key part of what we are trying to do.

Gordon Prentice: What functions currently provided by Jobcentre Plus will move to the private and third sectors? How will the commissioning work, and will the contracts be published?

Peter Hain: I was able to provide some reassurance on those points to Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, when I talked to him about our plans. There will be more intensive work for Jobcentre Plus staff in the first 12 months. It is in the nature of the shift from being on passive benefits such as income support or incapacity benefit to being on active, work-based benefit that more activity by Jobcentre Plus staff will be needed. After 12 months, depending on how the provision is delivered—by the public sector, the private sector, including Jobcentre Plus in principle, or the voluntary sector—there will be an impact. However, I expect that it will balance out in terms of staff. We will have to work out the contracts, but we want to ensure that they are results-based and sustainable.

Andrew Miller: I was delighted recently to be able to show Lord McKenzie the partnership work between the retail sector and the further education sector in my constituency, and the impact that that has had on employment. I commend that work to my right hon. Friend. Will he ensure that he gets his own Department in order and that family-friendly policies prevail within it?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend had better tell me exactly what he means by that. The Department should practise what it preaches and I think that we have a proud record of delivery in recent years. On the partnership between retail and further education, the latter has an important role to play, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills will identify shortly, especially in forging close links with local businesses. In my experience, the FE colleges that perform most successfully have an organic relationship with the local business community.

Anne Begg: While most of the Green Paper will be about getting people who are out of work into work, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that there would be a focus on job retention, which is extremely important for those with mental health problems. We make it doubly difficult for them because they get help only when falling out of their existing job, and finding a new job causes extra stress and anxiety. What is his thinking on how we can improve job retention, especially for people who have had mental health problems?

Peter Hain: I welcome what my hon. Friend says, and she makes a very important point that illustrates the step change that we will need to make. New challenges will be faced by the extra layers of people to whom we want to offer the chance to work. Sainsbury is one of the companies with which we are working in partnership, and it has put in a lot of work, with Mencap, on employing people with mental health problems. It intends to pilot one of our local employment partnership programmes though recruitment for online grocery jobs in London within the M25. Sainsbury's chief executive talked about that at No. 10 this morning, and the company's participation will help us to encourage employers to recognise that people who claim incapacity benefit because of stress or similar problems are able to work. They can be helped to overcome their problems if they are given the opportunity to work, but job retention is important, and they must be given support in that respect as well.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome many elements of the statement and the Green Paper, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that many hon. Members in the Chamber today share my difficulty with the idea of a lone parent of a 12-year-old child being taken off income support. Many parents will welcome the opportunity to work, but the problem has less to do with seeking jobs or the stigma associated with not having a job, than with the fact that there is a lack of wraparound child care that is affordable and of high quality. That is especially awkward in the summer months when the schools are on holiday, as child care that is normally needed only before or after school has to be available all day. People who work in supermarkets suffer most of all, as the flexible hours that they work mean that they often finish at 8 or 10 o'clock in the evening, and it cannot be expected that those hours will all be worked only by people who do not have children. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the first box to be ticked in the personalised care catalogue will be the availability of high-quality, affordable and wraparound care? The second box to be ticked can then be a person's suitability for work.

Peter Hain: I shall welcome my hon. Friend's detailed comments on the Green Paper, but it makes clear that the availability of suitable child care is an essential component. We cannot expect lone parents who have to care for children to take a job unless that care is available. Such care will be increasingly available over the next few years, and should be universally available when we come to consider bringing the age of the child down to seven. We would not expect parents with children aged seven to accept a job unless it was certain that the proper child care was available locally, and that they had access to the support that they need. That support must be affordable, as people in that situation cannot always get jobs that are well paid, although we hope that they will be able to do so in the future. If parents do not get affordable support, we will not be able to give them the opportunities that they want.

Kerry McCarthy: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling child poverty, we should look not only at the quantity of people whom we move from welfare into work, but also at the quality of the jobs that they go to? If we force people to take unskilled, insecure and low-paid jobs, we will tend to entrench families in poverty. In contrast, we should give people with slightly older children a breathing space so that they can go into full-time education without adversely affecting their benefits. In the longer term, that will be a much more sustainable and sensible solution.

Peter Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's work with the Child Poverty Action Group, and I welcome her expertise and commitment in responding to the Green Paper. She is right that the question is one of quality as well as quantity. There would be no point in making lone parents enter an insecure world of work, and no benefit would accrue if they were to find themselves in the twilight world of temporary and agency work, as that lacks the security that they need. People in that situation would not feel that they were offering themselves or their children any future, and we must make sure that the problem identified by my hon. Friend is resolved.

Ian Davidson: I do not seek a referendum on this matter. The Government's record in this regard is generally excellent, but I hope that they will recognise that, as other hon. Members have noted, some stubbornly difficult areas of high unemployment remain. In my constituency, which covers Govan and Pollok, more jobs are about to be created than there are unemployed people, but the danger is that the jobs will be filled by people from more prosperous areas, or by migrants. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling for my area to be made a zero unemployment zone? Jobcentre Plus staff should be tasked with working to that end, so that the jobs are not filled with people from outside. Will he also co-operate with the Scottish Parliament and Glasgow city council to achieve zero unemployment in the parts of the city that I have mentioned? Thank you!

Peter Hain: I thank my hon. Friend. We are very happy to work with Glasgow city council and other local authorities across the country. That is one reason why I have made that option available after 12 months, rather than simply sticking with job providers in the private or voluntary sectors. Many councils want to get involved, and they have the sort of ideas and expertise that will assist us in our aims. However, it is precisely to avoid the problem that my hon. Friend describes—of more jobs being available than there are people on the jobseeker's allowance claimant count—that we are getting local employers involved in the local employment partnerships. The priority of such employers is to employ local people, as they are more likely to be long-term rather than short-term employees. Turnover rates are often very high in the retail sector, for example, but they can be reduced if local people are involved, and especially the ones who are desperate to work but have previously not had the opportunity. Local employment partnerships provide a key answer to the important question posed by my hon. Friend.

World-Class Skills

John Denham: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on delivering world-class skills in England. Natural resources, a big labour force and a dose of inspiration used to be all that was required for countries to succeed economically. Today, it is the skills of our people that matter most. We have achieved much since 1997, with 2.6 million more people in jobs, more than 1.7 million adults with literacy and numeracy qualifications and record numbers in our universities, but there is still huge challenge ahead.
	At present, in the OECD, we are 18th for low skills, 20th for intermediate skills and 11th for high skills. To be competitive in a global economy, to reach 80 per cent. participation in employment and to offer new opportunities to people in work, we must do better.
	Today, the Government are publishing the document "World Class Skills". It sets out how, with individuals and employers, we will bring about a skills revolution and close the gap between where we are now and where we need to be in 2020. Our ambition is to ensure that this country becomes a world leader in skills by 2020. That means being in the top quartile of OECD countries—the premier league for skills.
	The targets that Lord Leitch recommended, and which we have accepted, are hugely ambitious. We want 95 per cent. of adults to achieve functional literacy and numeracy by 2020, and our aim is to have more than 1.1 million more people achieving that over the next three years. We also want more than 90 per cent. of adults to be qualified to at least level 2 by 2020, with one and a half million more adults achieving a full level 2 for the first time over three years. Another objective is to shift the balance of intermediate skills from level 2 to level 3, with half a million more people reaching that standard over three years. We want to have more than 40 per cent. of adults qualified to level 4 and above by 2020, with 1.25 million more by the end of the comprehensive spending review period.
	Enhancing all our skills so much, so rapidly, will take more than the effective use of public and private money, more than changes in the way in which we organise and deliver training, and more than our overhaul of qualifications so that all employers rate them and individuals feel they are worth striving for. It will take a culture change in attitudes towards training and skills. The result will be that in the years to come, when somebody complains that they are in a dead-end job, their best friend will ask what they are doing to improve their skills. Alternatively, when employers express frustration at the skills of their employees, others will ask what they are doing to train them.
	As individuals and employers accept greater responsibility for improving their skills, they must know that we in Government accept our responsibility to support them. "World Class Skills" sets out how we will meet our responsibility. We must ensure that the rising generation starts working life with higher qualifications and higher skills. We will introduce legislation to raise the participation age to 18. We will boost the number of apprentices in England, meaning that all suitably qualified young people will have access to an apprenticeship, and we will introduce a new entitlement to free training for those aged 19 to 25, in order to help more people in that target group achieve their first full level 3 qualification.
	Seventy per cent. of the work force of 2020 have already left compulsory-age education. That is why the focus of "World Class Skills" is on adults. Our proposals are based on clear principles. First, we must ensure that employers are at the heart of the skills system. Improved skills improve productivity and competitiveness, but training must be tailored to employers' needs, delivered in ways that support their businesses, and offer qualifications in which they have confidence.
	The creation of a demand-led system of skills is our single most fundamental reform. We will make "train to gain" a much broader service that will help employers of all sizes and in all sectors to improve the skills of all their employees. We will put employers at the head of the skills system. Working with the devolved Administrations, we will create a new UK commission for employment and skills, and strengthen the employer voice at the heart of the system. We will reform the remit of sector skills councils to make them more sharply focused on raising employer ambition and investment in skills at all levels. Employers will have the key role in reforming vocational qualifications to ensure that they generate economically valuable skills. It will be easier for employers' in-house training programmes to be accredited. More higher education institutions will collaborate with employers to develop programmes and delivery methods that meet their higher-level skills needs.
	Secondly, individuals must also get training that is tailored to their needs. New skills accounts will give individuals greater ownership and choice over their learning, motivating them to gain skills and achieve qualifications, enter work and progress in employment. Moving from a poor job with few prospects to a better job can be as hard as moving from unemployment into work for the first time, so we will back skills accounts with a new universal adult careers service in England. Working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus, the careers service will be able to advise on training and skills, and help overcome other barriers to ambition, such as sorting out child care. We will legislate to give adults a new legal right to access free basic literacy and numeracy programmes and training, leading to their first full level 2 qualification.
	Thirdly, we will work in partnership with employers and employees. We will step up the drive to encourage employers, large and small, to sign the skills pledge to benefit their staff. Companies that sign the skills pledge make a public commitment to support their employees to become more skilled and better qualified. We will support them through "train to gain". We recognise that the encouragement of a colleague may often be the single most influential factor in persuading someone to improve their skills. So we will encourage trade unions in the important part they have to play in achieving our skills ambitions, through union learning representatives—currently 18,000 strong—and by building on the achievements of the new union-sponsored training programme, unionlearn.
	This partnership approach, in which we shall engage learners and employers, is crucial to the new culture we are seeking to create. Without it the nation will not meet the targets we are setting out. Failure is not an option. That is why Lord Leitch proposed that in 2010, the new commission for employment and skills should review whether we are making satisfactory progress or whether we need to introduce a statutory workplace training entitlement. I can confirm today that we will carry out such a review in 2010. However, let us make every effort to achieve our ambitions without legislation.
	Our proposals benefit employers and employees alike. The business case for investing in skills stands in its own right. It makes sense for Government to work with employers purely for the economic benefits and improved competitiveness it will bring. However, we must not forget that for many people, improved skills are the route to better jobs, higher incomes, reduced child poverty and improved social mobility. If we enable parents on low incomes to raise their aspirations and to have the opportunity to improve their lives, we can be sure that their children will have higher aspirations and better opportunities too.
	Lord Leitch challenged us all to raise the nation's skills base, build productivity, increase social inclusion and improve economic competitiveness. With employers, employees and other learners, unions, colleges, universities and training providers, we will meet that challenge. As our new skills campaign on television and in the press so rightly says: "Our Future. It's in Our Hands". I commend the paper to the House.

David Willetts: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Of course, we share the Government's aim of achieving world-class skills. We agree with the powerful statement by Lord Leitch in his report that
	"In the 21st century, our natural resource is our people—and their potential is both untapped and vast. Skills will unlock that potential."
	However, the Government have been making big promises about skills for years. In Budget after Budget, the Prime Minister launched initiative after initiative—initiatives that are supposed to be rising to the skills challenge. In his 1999 Budget statement, he said:
	"Britain must make a quantum leap in skills".—[ Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 176.]
	In fact, even before Labour came to office, in 1996, he said:
	"I want Britain to be a world skills superpower".
	Today we are told that our aim is to be in the top quartile of OECD countries—I guess that is what 10 years in government does to people.
	Perhaps one reason for that downgrading of ambition is the uncomfortable evidence that some key problems have been getting worse. The number of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training has risen from 1.08 million in 1997 to 1.25 million today. That is a 15 per cent. increase. The statement should have recognised that we need a change from the failed approach of the past. Both Lord Leitch's report and the Secretary of State use the right language. They talk about a demand-led system; we completely agree. They talk about its being employer-driven; again, we completely agree. However, in order to deliver that type of system, we need a tough-minded and rigorous assessment of how our skills policies need to change, which is not, I am afraid, what we have had today.
	The report and the Government talk about a flexible employer-driven system, but the Government are keeping the panoply of controls that we have in our current centrally planned system. They will still set their plans for specific qualifications region by region, level by level and subject by subject, and further education colleges will still have to comply, churning out the paper qualifications that the Government want them to produce—when too many of those paper qualifications are not valued by employers, who understand that, sadly, a qualification is not always the same thing as a skill.
	FE colleges, about which we have heard very little from the Secretary of State, are desperate to have more freedom to respond to local needs so that they can be employer-driven, but instead they have 17 different regulatory bodies telling them what to do. As we heard in the Foster report only last year:
	"There is a galaxy of oversight, inspection and accreditation bodies. They need to be rationalised, co-ordinated and focused."
	That is what the FE colleges are calling out for. Instead of tackling the 17 bodies that already supervise FE colleges, the Secretary of State has just announced the creation of an 18th—the new UK commission for employment and skills.
	Sitting on top of that structure is the Learning and Skills Council. I think that if Lord Leitch had been given his head, he would have wished to get rid of the Learning and Skills Council. Instead, the Secretary of State has announced today a fifth reorganisation—reforming the remit of sector skills councils. What are the Government really going to do about the Learning and Skills Council? After the latest reorganisation in Whitehall, will the Secretary of State tell us what he expects its long-term role and function to be?
	If the Secretary of State had stood at the Dispatch Box and said that central planning had not worked, and that he was genuinely shifting to a demand-led, employer-driven system, we could have supported him, but sadly his statement today does not rise to that challenge.
	Let me ask the Secretary of State about specific aspects of his statement. He set out several numerical targets—"ambitious" targets, he called them—that arose from Leitch, but it is noticeable that he did not give a target for apprenticeships, despite the fact that the then Chancellor said, as recently as in the 2007 Budget, that
	"There will be average rises of...cash each year for the next three years, enabling us to...do more to double apprenticeship numbers to 500,000".—[ Official Report, 21 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 828.]
	In his December 2007 pre-Budget report, he again talked about apprenticeships rising to 500,000. Has the Secretary of State dropped the target, either because he no longer believes in such central targets for apprenticeships, or because he is afraid that he will not reach it? After all, the number of apprenticeships has fallen from 135,000 to 123,000 in the past 18 months. If he is committed to the target, why did he not refer to it in his statement?
	The Secretary of State referred to focusing on adults—rightly so, because many of the people whose skills we need to raise are already in the work force. However, we really need to know what the Government are doing about the catastrophic fall in the number of FE adult learning places, which is down by 1 million. We cannot talk about the importance of adult retraining and reskilling when the Government's mechanism for financing FE colleges shifts those colleges away from helping adults. He also talked about making "train to gain" a broad service, but is he aware that a criticism made of "train to gain" is that it has a very high dead-weight cost? A lot of that cost goes on programmes and training that would have happened anyway.
	I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State enjoys reading Institute for Fiscal Studies appraisals of his policies, and I am sure that he will recognise its statement that there is no "systematic evidence" that the programme had
	"significantly increased employer provision of, or employee engagement in, training".
	The appraisal estimated that about 85 to 90 per cent. of "train to gain" costs could be dead-weight. It went on to say that it could be that
	"the true effect is zero percentage points implying 100 per cent. deadweight."
	Why are the Government putting more money into "train to gain" when evaluations show that it has such a high dead-weight cost? Of course, the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills responded to that challenge by saying:
	"the idea behind Train to Gain is to assist small businesses, which is where a particular problem lies".—[ Official Report, 8 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 975.]
	It appears that the current Secretary of State has changed that approach; "train to gain" is no longer to be targeted on smaller businesses, in an attempt to respond to the problem of dead-weight cost. Why does he believe that his new general approach will improve the situation in any way?
	We welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the new skills account. It could be significant, and it could give individuals much greater control over their training. We look forward to seeing the detail of that proposal, and we hope that lessons have been learned from the failure of individual learning accounts. However, I have to say that the statement does not rise to the challenge of providing an employer-driven, individually focused service to improve the nation's skills. It does not rise to the challenge of his new Department.

John Denham: Obviously, to some extent I am slightly disappointed by the tone that the hon. Gentleman has adopted, but it is important to explore the claims that he makes so that we can see whether his response deserves to be treated as having any credibility. He attacked the Government for their failure to make progress on skills over the past 10 years—but as I said in my statement, the reality is that there has been considerable progress since we inherited a disastrous situation from the Conservative Government.
	It is a bit rich to hear questions being asked about apprenticeships, because in the early 1990s, the reality was that one could go from one end of the country to the other and barely find a young person who was entering an apprenticeship, because the entire system had collapsed. We had to rebuild the apprenticeship system, not just in terms of the number of people involved, but in terms of the success rates and completion rates, which have gone up dramatically over the past two or three years. We have brought 1.14 million adults up to level 2 in the past four years. We have taken 1.75 million people through the skills for life programme. There were 250,000 people on apprenticeships in England last year, compared with only 75,000 in 1997—and those 75,000 had only just begun. We have every reason to be proud of what we have achieved from a very difficult starting point, but we have the honesty to set before the House the scale of the challenge that faces us in the years ahead.
	As for whether what we have said matches up to what is needed, we accept some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about FE colleges, but he will know that work is under way to design and introduce a lighter-touch regulatory system for them, and I hope that we can make more progress on that in the months to come. He criticised us first for expanding "train to gain", and secondly for failing to introduce a demand-led system that responds to the needs of employers. If he does not like "train to gain", he will at some point have to tell us what a demand-led system shaped by the interests of employers would actually look like. "Train to gain" is designed to make sure that the money in the skills system is used to ensure that FE colleges and other providers offer the training provision that employers actually want and recognise, and qualifications that employers value.
	The hon. Gentleman was somewhat dismissive of what we said about taking a look at vocational qualifications, but to me that issue is central. There are employers who say that they are not sure that level 2 qualifications give them what they want, so our plans to work with the commission for employment and skills to overhaul the sector skills councils are central if we are to have a skills system that delivers what employers want.
	The issue of dead-weight, particularly in the employment training pilots, has been raised. We will bring forward more detailed plans to extend "train to gain" in the autumn, and we will then need to set out how we intend to keep an eye on the issue. Of course, we do not in any way want to lose the quality of service offered to smaller employers, which they rate very highly, but it is right that the same responsiveness should be offered to a wider range of employers. I hope that I have covered the fundamental points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, I should say to him that the target of 500,000 apprenticeships is set out prominently in the document. That is a UK target, and my commitment today is on meeting England's share of that overall target, but in no sense has the UK target disappeared from our ambitions and aspirations.

Stephen Williams: First, may I explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who would have responded to the statement, is unavoidably detained elsewhere by a family illness?
	I guess that the Secretary of State spent the last two weeks immersing himself in the details of the Leitch report, because much of his statement is simply a rehash of the many targets in that report, and a repetition of many old announcements made by previous Ministers. However, the one issue not addressed in the statement is whether there is a meaningful future for the Learning and Skills Council. Nine initiatives are mentioned in the statement, but time only permits me to comment on a few of them.
	The main legislation that will follow from the statement will have to do with increasing the education and training participation age to 18. The draft legislative programme, published by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago, referred to compulsion for individuals, a duty for parents, enforcement, penalties and sanctions. Is that the right language to use when encouraging more young people to take part in education and training? Would it not be much better to talk about giving them meaningful entitlements and incentives?
	There are voluntary pledges for employers until 2010, but we are talking about enforcement against individuals and their parents.
	No assessment has been given of the cost of implementing the increase in educational participation or how that cost is to be shared by the state, the individual and crucially employers. Will the Secretary of State please address that?
	A second tangible announcement in the statement is old news. It is about increasing the free entitlement from 19 to 25 to level 3 provision. That pledge was made at least twice by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we still do not know whether there is any new money to back it up. In his first statement in his new role, the Secretary of State announced £400 million of additional support for students in higher education. What additional support are the Government pledging for level 3 provision?
	The statement is full of warm or tepid phrases about how the Government intend to implement the Leitch report. It refers to refocusing the efforts of sector skills councils, and more universities collaborating with employers. What on earth does that mean? I know that the Secretary of State is probably still getting to grips with what universities do, but I know that most universities, if not all, already have extensive collaboration programmes with employers. That is the basis of foundation degrees, and many employers and universities collaborate on cutting-edge degrees, such as in gaming technology, in which Britain leads the world. What more do the Government expect higher education to do?
	On the voluntary skills pledge to which employers are meant to sign up by 2010, the statement speaks of stepping up the drive. Again, what on earth does that mean? We know that the former Chancellor appointed his new comrade, Lord Digby Jones, as the skills champion who will charge around the country exhorting employers to sign up to the pledge. Now that he has another role, will the Government please explain to us who will be exhorting employers to sign up to the pledge and how, over the next two and a half years up to 2010, they will assess whether employers have met that pledge in sufficient numbers and to a meaningful extent before they can decide whether legislation is needed?
	The Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of a universal adult careers service, but where is the money to back that up? The statement is silent on whether new resources will be put behind the service, or whether it will be a re-aggregation of existing budgets. Will the Secretary of State recognise that many people start on their career paths before they become adults, when they are 14 or 16? Does he agree that he needs to co-operate with his ministerial colleague in the Department for Children, Schools and Families to set up an independent careers and guidance service for 14-year-olds and 16-year-olds to complement the work being done with adults?
	The right hon. Gentleman set out an ambitious agenda for his new Department, but there are three strands to the Department. Higher education and science are backed by billions of pounds of Government resources, but there is a risk and a perception out there that the adult skills element of the Department is the Cinderella. He will have to work hard to redress that perception. The most compelling change that needs to take place is more engagement and more investment by employers. Unless the Government are willing to back up the statement with action rather than exhortation, the ambitious target of being in the premier league by 2010 will be very hard to achieve.

John Denham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which are all pertinent. I shall try to address them all. Of course I understand why the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) is not able to be present today.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Learning and Skills Council, so I shall take the opportunity to set out the position. As he knows, the funding for school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and the contribution of FE colleges to 14-to-19 provision will transfer from the LSC to local authority ring-fenced budgets. My estimate is that we will not be able to give effect to the full legislative changes until the academic year 2010-11, so the legal responsibility will remain with the LSC over that period. We will co-operate sensibly and closely with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to make sure that provision is delivered effectively both for young people in that age group and for adult learners.
	For post-19 education and training, we will consider how best to deliver the functions and services that support the FE system, and I want to build on the progress made with the LSC over recent years in developing a demand-led approach. As we do that, we will work closely with the LSC and other national partners, and consult schools, colleges and providers to ensure that the new arrangements are introduced smoothly. We will take the opportunity to review how the funding and accountability framework can best support initiative and high performance at institutional level and across the FE sector as a whole.
	On participation to 18, the set of principles are similar to those that I discussed in my statement. We would rather not use compulsion, but we cannot rule it out if sufficient progress is not made. That must be the approach to young people in education and training. The detailed allocation of costs will depend to some extent on the balance between employer-based and work-based training.
	On 19-to-25 provision, I make no apologies for the fact that the Government have set out repeatedly their vision of being able to offer an apprenticeship to anybody in the 16-to-19 age group who wants to go on an apprenticeship, and a commitment to level 3 up to age 25. It has taken time to build up capacity in the apprenticeship system from where we started to bring that goal more and more within reach, and we continue to make progress. I do not regard it as a rehashed promise, but rather as one towards which we are steadily making progress.
	With respect to universities, HEFCE has developed a package with universities for about 5,000 co-funded higher level placements with industry for the coming period. That is a step in the right direction, but the bigger issue that the hon. Gentleman might like to consider is that, of the entire training budget held by employers, only 3 per cent. is spent with higher education institutions. That suggests that there is a massive potential to increase the volume of higher level education and training involving universities from the present level. That is something that we need to discuss in the years to come.
	On the skills pledge, we will step up the drive to get companies to join the skills pledge. The noble Lord Jones, who is now a Government Minister, brought a particular and individual verve and passion to the skills pledge, and he slotted into the post very naturally indeed. I have already met Sir Michael Rake, who will chair the commission on employment and skills, to discuss how we continue and whether it would be appropriate to look for a single envoy or whether the commission as a body, which will have strong employer representation, may be a better vehicle to take the pledge forward. I hope we can resolve that quickly.
	The starting point for resources for the adult careers service is to bring together learndirect and nextstep. It makes sense to co-ordinate those services and to stress the importance of the close working relationship with Jobcentre Plus. On the starting point at 14, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the diploma programme.
	Finally, I do not believe that adult skills is a Cinderella. What Leitch has given us for the first time is a logical framework to approach funding, with the public sector recognising a responsibility particularly in the area of basic skills and level 2 qualifications, and a recognition that higher level qualifications should rightly attract a larger contribution from individuals and employers because the direct and immediate benefits to them are that much greater. That gives us a sensible framework for deciding how we want to fund this crucial area of work.

Gordon Marsden: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and I warmly welcome the statement. The fact that one of his first speaking appointments was to the all-party skills group and the National Skills Forum augurs well for the emphasis and focus that the Government are putting on skills. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on culture change and the focus on adults. I should like to raise two issues with him which have informed the discussions that the all-party group have had about Leitch since the report was published at the end of last year.
	The first is about focusing on adult learners. My right hon. Friend will know all the statistics about the demographic gap that we are going to face over the next 10 to 15 years in terms of younger people, which means that we must place even more emphasis on older people in the work force. Does he agree that reskilling is as important as upskilling as part of the central strategy to gain more effectiveness in this area?
	My second point is a related one. One of the criticisms of this policy that has been made in the past is that it has not always been finessed enough, particularly in relation to older learners. In considering how we take forward the exacting targets that Leitch has set, can we focus more on age-proofing and the particular needs of people in their 40s and 50s, and even beyond? We need to get those issues right in order to maximise the contribution to the skills improvements and ambitious targets that my right hon. Friend and his Department rightly look to.

John Denham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and acknowledge the important work done by the all-party group on skills, not least in bringing the world skills competition to the UK in a few years' time. Reskilling is enormously important. One of the challenges is to get the relationship between FE colleges and other training providers and employers right so that it is simple for employers to identify the package of training, and the delivery method, that will meet their needs. It may well be that the person is already in work and we have to raise their level of skills without disrupting the way in which the company or employer operates. "Train to gain" and the brokerage service will be as available to people facing that problem as to those who are, say, trying to meet the skills pledge to get people into level 2. That is an important part of its role.
	I am interested in my hon. Friend's point about age-proofing. I see no reason why the policies that I set out should not be of equal benefit to people of all ages in the work force, but if there are particular issues that he would like to raise with me, I would be more than happy to meet him, and perhaps other members of the all-party group.
	Several hon. Members  rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind all hon. Members of the need for just one question and a short response so that more may be successful in catching my eye?

Phil Willis: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's statement. For the whole of my working life, we have had education for the best and skills for the rest. Leitch has put skills right at the heart of the national agenda, not just the Government's agenda. In terms of the 40 per cent. target for level 4 students, or graduates, by 2020, does the Secretary of State recognise that simply adding more graduates to our work force is not what UK plc really wants? There is a massive need for scientific and technical skills, particularly at level 4. What plans does he have to address the market so that we can produce graduates with the relevant skills for business rather than simply more graduates to meet a target?

John Denham: There are two issues that we need to address. First, there is the way in which a range of higher education institutions sets out to deliver the types of degree course that the hon. Gentleman is talking about; foundation degrees are often particularly relevant in this area. Secondly, not every higher level qualification is a degree qualification, although it may involve that level of study. Many companies are working with higher education institutions on training programmes and delivering higher level education tailored to the needs of those companies. Some universities have made much better progress at organising themselves to know what is needed in the local economy at the higher level of skills. I agree that we should not be trapped by a particular model of what a degree should look like or by what a particular programme of study should look like. That will ensure that industry gets the skills that it needs.

Adrian Bailey: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly the emphasis on mentoring in the trade union movement. However, it is not needed in the trade union movement alone. In some communities, particularly the most deprived, there is a deep-seated aversion to education and skills, and sometimes even to employment. May I draw to his attention an organisation called Skills Link, which operates in Tipton in my constituency and which uses community mentors to involve people in the education and learning process? Will he look at that with a view to seeing what lessons could be learned in raising skills in the most deprived areas?

John Denham: I would be very interested to discuss the work that my hon. Friend describes. I met representatives from the TUC a few days ago and had a discussion with them about whether the expertise of 18,000 union learning representatives could be used in community, as well as workplace, settings. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that preceded mine helped to set out how both our Departments need to work together in communities of the sort that my hon. Friend mentions. We do not want a situation where we get somebody into work and then they drop out again and have to reapply three months later. Providing people with skills as they go into work, and maintaining and improving their skills levels in work, is absolutely vital to sustainable employment and a sustainable cut in unemployment in those communities. We need to use the skills of everybody we can find, not only public sector employees, to enable that to happen.

Ian Taylor: Any statement on improving skills is welcome. However, I should like to concentrate on the high skills area, where we are 11th in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in terms of quality. Those are the skills that really attract and retain investment in the knowledge-based creative industries. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will take that into account in reforming the remit of the sector skills councils, which can be very responsive to what the industry needs if they work creatively with it? They are often criticised on the basis that they are still not multi-disciplinary enough to meet the new challenges that arise in some of the new creative, added value industries, where they cross sectors rather than just lying within one sector.

John Denham: Within that brief question were several very important points. It is important that the sector skills councils engage effectively with the higher level skills. One of the things that Lord Leitch told us, very politely, was that some do it better than others. Some have engaged enormously well with higher education institutions because that is where their employers have said that the problem lies. We need to ensure that all sector skills councils do that as appropriate to their industries. Other initiatives, such as academies, are being developed; I think that there is going to be one for the nuclear industry. That is another way in which employers and providers can collaborate to meet the whole range of skills that are needed within a sector.  [ Interruption . ] Of course, we must recognise the need for cross-sectoral courses to be available where appropriate, not just courses in individual sectors. And I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for prompting me on that point from a sedentary position.

Chris Mullin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that the Learning and Skills Council is causing mayhem among local training providers in areas like mine, with its constant chopping and changing of strategy and endless series of short-term contracts, now followed by a "big is beautiful" phase in which it is awarding contracts to large private sector providers who are very good at writing out the applications but walk away when they find, often predictably, that they cannot deliver? May I appeal to him to encourage the LSC to be a bit more consistent in its approach and to use local training providers where they are up to the job and capable?

John Denham: I certainly hope that that is not the universal picture across the country. I will be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the particular issues that have given rise to his concern. We need to recognise that a move towards a more demand-led system of skills is a move away from the "predict and provide" approach based on saying, "We will work out how many places we want and give you a contract for them", to something that is much more closely tailored to what employers need. In that sense, over time there will in any case be quite a fundamental change to the relationship between the flow of funds and the providers of training, which should mean that we get a closer match between what is provided and what employers want.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has laid before the House today. In his statement he said, "We will step up the drive to encourage employers, large and small, to sign the skills pledge to benefit their staff." Given that the Government are probably one of the largest employers in this country, particularly through Her Majesty's armed forces, I urge the Secretary of State to meet the Defence Secretary to discuss the number of armed forces personnel who, because of overstretch, are unable to attend reskilling, upskilling and continuing professional development courses as a result of those courses being cancelled, or of there not being enough personnel to fill them.

John Denham: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will see any Secretary of State whose Department is too tardy in signing up to the skills pledge. Most Departments are already signed up and we need to ensure that that extends to all reasonable parts of public service. The armed forces have done a good job in many areas, particularly with regard to apprenticeships, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise particular issues with me, I shall certainly look into them.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and it is clear that the Government are seriously addressing an important national problem. The problem is not new; some 20 years ago Sig Prais and Claus Moser drew attention to it, making stark comparisons between Britain and the continent of Europe concerning skills in particular, but also education and skills in the broader sense. Is it not possible that we are trying to invent our own solution to a problem when obvious solutions might be available abroad? Should we not just look at the most successful countries on the continent of Europe and start to imitate them directly in order to ensure that we achieve in the way that they do? Employers would not then simply employ continental Europeans who already have the skills necessary, while leaving our own people unemployed.

John Denham: I believe that Lord Leitch looked at international experience as well as the approach taken in this country. It is true that the issue of skills has been a problem with the British economy for a long time—certainly since the latter part of the 19th century, at the very least—and it has been raised recently. Sir Claus Moser was heavily influential on the literacy campaign that was launched with such success four or five years ago.
	My view is that for too long we have not identified properly the partnership between the Government, individuals and employers that can deliver successful and sustainable improvements in skills. Over the years, we have perhaps lurched between thinking that the public sector could work it all out for itself, and putting unrealistic expectations on the private sector to pay for everything. I believe that the statement I made today gets the balance right, and it should be the basis for real achievement in the future.

Daniel Rogerson: Will the Secretary of State closely examine access to training in rural areas? In North Cornwall, despite excellent work by schools, we still have people making a 100-mile-a-day round trip from places like Bude to Truro in order to access specialist courses. Will he bear in mind the provision of training and upskilling in deprived rural areas such as North Cornwall?

John Denham: That is an important issue. It is not simply a matter for urban areas, and I recognise the problems set out by the hon. Gentleman. There will be some funds in the system to assist in areas in cases of special need, which can include matters such as transport. I hope that as we flesh out the detail of our plans, he will see that we recognise the problems in areas such as his.

Clive Efford: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. In doing so, I draw his attention to the work of primary schools in my constituency that have set up adult learning centres in the community. Parents in those schools have been able to add to qualifications, or gain them if they had none, leading to their gaining employment. We can really target and attack deprivation in the most deprived areas in our communities by using local centres such as primary schools. I commend that work to my right hon. Friend.
	Our colleague, my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, has visited a primary school in my constituency and seen for himself how the process is working. It works because it is in an environment where people feel confident and able to come forward and engage with what is going on, and by doing so they are able to assist in the education of their own children. Examples of that process were shown to my hon. Friend when he came to visit. We are able to target such communities, and I urge the Secretary of State, when he is considering future funding, to make it easier for schools to set up such adult learning centres.

John Denham: I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend said. I am passionate about the ability to tackle family poverty and improve social mobility through improving adult skills. In my constituency, one of the least expected but most welcome effects of Sure Start has been on the aspirations of parents who have been involved with it. Many of them, by becoming involved in Sure Start, have gone on to jobs as nursery nurses or classroom assistants, and then feed back that experience to their own children, affecting their expectations of what can be achieved. We need to extend the type of experience my hon. Friend talks about as widely as possible.

Angela Watkinson: One group of people who desperately need functional literacy and numeracy and skills training are offenders serving custodial sentences. How will the new universal adult careers service, the prison education service and the unions work together to ensure that every person leaving prison on the completion of a custodial sentence will be fit for work, and that employers are persuaded to overcome their very natural reluctance to offer a job to somebody who has been in prison?

John Denham: That is a very important issue. The Government set out last year, in a document called "Next Steps", our response to some of the challenges of reducing reoffending, and we need to build on that work. In a previous capacity, I was enormously impressed by the work of the National Grid Transco scheme, which gets young offenders into work by essentially guaranteeing them jobs if they successfully complete training as they leave an institution. Through such mechanisms and the corporate alliance supported by the Ministry of Justice, I hope that, as well as generally raising the level of skills among offenders, we can extend the direct routes of offenders into work, because the reoffending rates involved are dramatically lower than those under many of the schemes we have tried in the past.

Orders of the Day

Statistics and Registration Service Bill

Lords Reasons fo r insisting on their amendments, considered.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 20, 67 to 70 and 72.

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
	That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 20, 67 to 70 and 72, does not insist on its Amendments 15B and 15C, but proposes the following amendments to the words restored to the Bill by disagreement with Lords Amendment No. 15: (a), (b) and (c).
	We are dealing with pre-release, which is the final point of contention relating to the Bill. Since our last debate on the Floor of the House, the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will call for a vote to confirm the recommended candidate for the chair of the Statistics Board, before the measure goes to the Queen. That is in addition to our commitment to reduce further the length of time for which pre-release access is available to 24 hours for all UK-wide and reserved statistics. Hon. and right hon. Members will recall that the previous agreement was for 40.5 hours. By committing to reduce pre-release access from the current period of up to 5 days to what will now be a maximum of 24 hours, the Government are demonstrating that they have listened and responded to the views expressed during the debates on the Bill in both Houses. It is time that the Government were given credit for the moves and changes that have been made during the Bill's passage.
	Under the proposals, it remains up to the Government to determine the precise content of the new pre-release arrangements under the new system, but our commitment today is to provide on the face of the Bill that the board must also be consulted. Moreover, pre-release arrangements will be set out in secondary legislation. The affirmative statutory instrument will set out rules and principles to restrict the number of people who receive pre-release access and the statistical series to which pre-release might apply. It will also restrict the length of time for which pre-release access is available to a maximum of 24 hours for reserve statistics.
	It has been more than 60 years since the previous statistical measure appeared before the House. We are concerned to ensure that the Bill leaves the House as "future-proofed" as possible in case it takes another 60 years to introduce another statistics Act. We want to ensure that the statistical community of the future operates under a system that is sufficiently flexible to remain relevant as needs change. The Government are therefore providing for pre-release arrangements to be contained in secondary rather than primary legislation. That is sensible, prudent and appropriate.
	The processes will provide a powerful role for the board in determining the new arrangements. Under our proposals, the role will be confirmed in the Bill. It has never been the Government's intention, in including pre-release arrangements in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill or the code of practice, to give Ministers a free rein. The proposed arrangement would not lead to such an outcome. It ensures that pre-release arrangements are subject to public consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and open debate.
	As I announced on 2 July, there will be a public consultation on the proposed content of the statutory instrument. Such consultation will be key to creating rules and principles for pre-release access that are credible, practical and appropriate in the context of the wider code.
	As hon. Members know from previous debates, under clause 25, the board may at any time produce a report about any matter that relates to the exercise of its functions. If it does that, it must lay it before one or more Houses of Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
	Since the board has functions under clause 8 to monitor pre-release access and will be consulted on the draft regulations, it may, if it wishes, prepare its response—or any concerns that it may have once the system is operational—as a formal report under clause 25. Even after a full consultation, the Bill provides that should it not be content with the outcome, or should it, in the fullness of time, wish further changes to the regime to be established in secondary legislation, it could not only call publicly for further changes, but do so in a formal report laid before the House. Clearly, were such a report prepared and laid before Parliament, we would expect Parliament—and the media—to question the Government on whether they would take up the independent board's recommendations, and to ask, "If not, why not?"
	As I have stated previously, the Government are committed to reviewing the operation of the pre-release arrangements after 12 months. That is precisely the sort of event in which we expect the board to be closely involved—and precisely the sort of event that might trigger its members to write such a report under clause 25(3), if they wished to do that.
	The Bill, together with the new legislative duty to consult the board in determining the content of the pre-release regime, will ensure a strong and meaningful role for the board in influencing the content of the pre-release regime and in enforcing the new arrangements.
	When the content of the secondary legislation has been agreed, it will be laid before the House for approval by affirmative resolution. Once commenced, clause 11(3) provides that the board must treat the content of the secondary legislation as though it were part of the code of practice.
	The Government intend that the board should play a full and meaningful role in determining the new pre-release arrangements and ensuring that they are complied with. There is substantial consensus on the importance and value of the Bill, which will govern the statistical system in this country. We have reached consensus on most of the key structures and processes that the Bill will establish. I hope that the hon. Members will support our proposals.

Philip Hammond: The purpose of the Bill, which the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey) spelled out on Second Reading, is to restore confidence in the statistical base on which so many of our political decisions are made. That is much needed. When I was an Opposition health spokesman in the late 1990s, I remember patients being reclassified from one list to another, beds being reclassified as chairs, and, more recently, the former Chancellor's "revisions" of the start and finish dates of the economic cycle. Those and many other examples have contributed to undermining public confidence in the statistical data that are provided to us. The Bill is a welcome attempt to address that.
	Conservative Members have long argued that an independent statistics service is a key part of the triple lock that will ensure fiscal and economic stability, along with the independent setting of interest rates and independent assessment of the fiscal rules. We have supported the principles of the Bill—after all, it enshrines much of our policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) made it clear from the outset that we would engage constructively in trying to improve the measure. There have been some successes so far. We welcome Government concessions that have strengthened the Bill and made it more likely to achieve its objective. Much has therefore been achieved.
	However, we need one last heave to make the Bill a substantial break with the past in relation to pre-release. The former national statistician identified that as the key matter for gaining public confidence. It is the last contentious issue, as the Exchequer Secretary said, and the subject of the Lords amendments that we are considering today.
	As the Bill left this place on 2 July, it uniquely preserved to Ministers the power, through secondary legislation, to set the rules for pre-release—who gets what and when—but no other aspects of control of statistics. In other words, Ministers will control the parameters for the operation of the spin machine about any given release of data. That was justified on the curious ground that
	"Ministers themselves are best placed to judge how much pre-release access they require, and under what conditions they require it".—[ Official Report, 2 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 710.]
	I bet they are. However, on that principle, Ministers may as well count the by-election votes tomorrow on the basis that they know best how many votes they require.
	The earlier the access to statistics, the greater the scope of controlling the agenda. There is no other reason for wanting to retain such long pre-release periods and total control of the rules for pre-release.

Angela Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to persuade the House that all the arrangements that I have set out—board involvement, transparency, public consultation and an affirmative statutory instrument—amount to total control for Ministers?

Philip Hammond: I am trying to persuade the House that it amounts to much less than independent control of the rules by the board, for which hon. Members in this place and the other place have argued. We perceive it as the objective for which we should hold out.
	Ministers have acknowledged, in proposing to reduce the five-day maximum for non-market sensitive data to 40.5 hours, that we remain way out of line with other countries. In France, the time is one hour; in Australia, the time is three hours, and Canada allows data to be released to Ministers the evening before general release. We must tackle those remaining, glaring anomalies.
	We are considering a proposal for an independent statistics system that allows Ministers to decide how much advance notice they get, how widely advance data are disseminated, and under what conditions. That is wildly out of line with international norms and very much out of line with what ordinary, thinking people would expect from a Prime Minister who promised to abandon spin.

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge, so that we can have a debate in which we are in contact with the arguments, that we are not considering unconstrained ministerial decision making? The maximum time is 24 hours and there is a range of provisions about, for example, the number of people who can see pre-release statistics. We have made several changes, and we are now considering constrained ministerial decision making. The process is systematically set out, is transparent and will be contained in secondary legislation. Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that.

Philip Hammond: The Exchequer Secretary talks about 24 hours, but I do not see 24 hours in her proposal, which we shall come to in a moment. She must understand that there is a clear distinction between a decision by an independent board and a decision by Ministers after consultation with that board. If she does not understand that, why is the architecture of the rest of the Bill set out as it is, with the board having that degree of control?
	If the Government do not get pre-release right, they will not restore public confidence in the system, regardless of whether the impartiality and the quality of the statistics will be improved by other initiatives in the Bill, and they will certainly not persuade the public that they have abandoned the spin culture. The issue has become the yardstick by which the success or failure of this attempt to clean up public data will be judged.
	I freely admit to being something of a Johnny-come-lately to the Bill—

Angela Eagle: You are not the only one.

Philip Hammond: Indeed, although the Exchequer Secretary did not come quite as late to the Bill as I did. I have had the pleasure of reading myself in, by looking at the debates in this place and the other place over the past six months or so. I have been struck by the irony that in a Bill that is designed to tackle the public perception of a culture of spin, it is the clauses most closely identified with that spin culture on which the Government have proved most resistant. It is doubly ironic that the debate itself has been mired in spin, first, when the Exchequer Secretary tried to convince the House that her voting for a report that argues for a three-hour maximum for pre-release is entirely consistent with standing at that Dispatch Box arguing for 40 hours for pre-release. Then there have been Ministers here and in the other place affecting not to understand the expectation that a clear statement by the Prime Minister that there will be a 24-hour maximum on pre-release should mean just that, and not that the Government want to retain flexibility.
	The intervention by the Prime Minister is an important element in this debate, but because it came on 3 July, it has not been debated in this House before. Was his constitutional statement on 3 July substantive or was it just spin? Was it a pre-emptive strike designed to head off demands for genuine independent control over pre-release? If his statement was substantive, why not write the 24-hour limit that he pledged into the Bill? He did not mention flexibility in his statement to the House and he did not say that the measure was subject to the small print. The commitment was simple—24 hours maximum. If we cannot take that at face value and incorporate it into the Bill, what credibility does the rest of that statement have?
	Not 18 hours before the Prime Minister made that statement, the Exchequer Secretary was rather half-heartedly defending the 40.5-hour limit, saying:
	"my duty at the Dispatch Box tonight is to say that the Government think that 40.5 hours is the appropriate time for pre-release, and that is what I will do."—[ Official Report, 2 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 728.]
	That was hardly a ringing personal endorsement, one might think. Some 18 hours later, the Prime Minister said:
	"I propose that we reduce the advance sight that Government Departments have of the release of statistical information from as much as five days currently to just 24 hours."—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 817.]
	That was straightforward, except that on 9 July Lord Davies of Oldham further clarified the situation in the other place, saying:
	"We do not want to put the length of time for pre-release access in primary legislation as we want flexibility".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 1237.]
	Either there has been a serious communication problem at the heart of the Government or old-fashioned spin is alive and well.
	The Exchequer Secretary cannot have known on 2 July what the Prime Minister was going to say on 3 July, because if she had, she would have been misleading the House with her statement, and she certainly would not have done any such thing. She then wrote to Committee members, also on 3 July, claiming that the Prime Minister's statement reflected the concerns expressed in the House the previous evening. So she would apparently have us believe that after the debate on 2 July she nipped round to No. 10 after the House rose, and that she and the Prime Minister decided on a 24-hour maximum over a cup of cocoa. I am not sure what worries me the most: the idea that there is no communication at the heart of the Government, the idea that they have retained their attachment to the culture of spin, or policy making on the hoof on such an epic scale.
	The Government of course claim that they have made a concession by requiring Ministers to consult the board before exercising the power to set the rules. However, the Exchequer Secretary must accept that the point of principle is that Ministers must not be judge and jury in their own cases, in relation to pre-release. The proper way to proceed now is for her to accept the Lords amendment—not scrapping pre-release, because that is not what is proposed, but allowing the board independently to determine the rules for pre-release, after consulting Ministers and taking into account their legitimate needs. The alternative way is for her to commit the Government to bringing in their own amendments to deliver a substantive role for the board in the pre-release process—I mean a substantive role, not merely a consultative role—if and when the Bill returns to the House of Lords after this debate.
	While the Exchequer Secretary is at it, perhaps she will also commit herself to including the 24-hour absolute maximum limit on pre-release in the Bill—not because I suggest that, but because her own Prime Minister has said that. The principle behind the Bill must be that statistics should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the intermediation of politicians.

Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. He just used a phrase that is quite interesting. He talked about the legitimate interests of Ministers with respect to pre-release. Could he share with the House what he thinks they are?

Philip Hammond: We recognise, and we have recognised throughout the debate, that Ministers have a legitimate interest in having access to data before they are made generally available.

Angela Eagle: Ah!

Philip Hammond: We have never disputed that. The issue is who should be the arbiter of the period of advance notice, who should determine the rules under which data are pre-released and how extensive the dissemination of those data should be. The Exchequer Secretary can um and ah as much as she likes from the Government Front Bench, but she will know that what we do in this country is wildly out of line with what is done in other developed economies.
	If that is not because the Government want to be able to manage the release of information in a way that would have been called spin in the old days, she needs to come forward with a substantive explanation of why the Government think that pre-release is qualitatively different from all the other aspects of control of statistics. The truth, as she very well knows, is that certain Departments—ironically, more so those concerned with social statistics than economic statistics—are determined to keep control over the release of what is all too often bad news, even when it is dressed up as good news, and to have access to at least one full news cycle ahead of release, in order to soften up the media and the public for the formal release and set the pristine objective data in a subjective context.
	In conclusion, I can do no better than quote Lord Moser from the debate in the other place. He said:
	"we now have a Bill that is extremely helpful and could historically lead to a new statistical system, except that it misses out on one particular. Unfortunately, that particular—pre-release—is probably the most known about in the statistical community and is in some ways indicative of the Government's ultimate attitude to the whole subject of public trust."
	I concur with Lord Moser, as he continued:
	"I still hope that it is not too late for the Government to think again on the only aspect that keeps this from being a really good Bill and makes it flawed".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 1255.]
	I hope indeed that it is not too late.

Vincent Cable: Unlike the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and the Exchequer Secretary, I am not a new boy to the Bill. I have been with it at every stage and must have spoken at least half a dozen times on the issue of pre-release, so I do not need to rehearse all the arguments. Indeed, in any event, the hon. Gentleman made the points that I would have made about our continued reservations concerning how the Government have approached the issue.
	The Minister asked for some acknowledgement of progress, and I am happy to acknowledge it in respect of the big picture of the Bill. It has been a good and useful Bill, which has been substantially improved in respect of official and national statistics, the locus of decision making in Departments and the role of the statistics board and chief statistician. Those are all big advances, helped by the fact that the other place has been engaged in improving the Bill.
	The Minister also wanted acknowledgement of progress on the issue of pre-release. Again, progress has been made and she has played an important part in it, as did her predecessor. I acknowledge that 24 hours is less than 40 hours, so it amounts to an improvement, but it is still much more than in almost every other developed country. I acknowledge the Minister's recent innovation of allowing consultation with the board. Once again, that is a step forward, but I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that consultation can mean anything or nothing. If approached in a constructive spirit, it provides the essence of how good governance should work, but if a bloody-minded Minister wishes to defy the Bill's principles, he will still be able to do so.
	Accepting that the amendment will suffice therefore requires a great deal of trust. It is important to stress that the amendment from the other place acknowledges the important role of Ministers. Indeed, amendment No. 13 states that access should be kept
	"to the minimum necessary to meet the needs of Ministers".
	The concept of the needs of Ministers is already clearly accepted in that amendment.
	The Minister places great stress on the fact that the statutory instrument will be subject to a full consultative process. I am sure that she means exactly what she says and I am sure that the consultation will be good, but she knows perfectly well that there is a fundamental defect with the statutory instrument process. If it comes before the House in a defective form and fails to reflect some of the key points of the consultation outside the House, it is unamendable. We simply will not have access at that stage to the iterative process that we have had on the main Bill. That is why we are resisting the idea of simply trusting in that process. I acknowledge that a great deal of progress has been made, even on that very vexed issue, but it is important to return the matter to the other place. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is inclined to move against the Government's proposals, we will support the Conservatives in a Division.

Michael Fallon: In common with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I believe that we should support the Lords amendment. There are two main issues. One is the time period and the other is who should in the end decide.
	On the time period, it is quite obvious from the changes of the past few months that the Government's proposal is completely arbitrary. There was no basis to 40.5 hours and there is no basis for 24 hours. There is no better illustration of how arbitrary the whole issue is than the position of the Minister. Last summer, when she signed the Treasury Committee's report, she was in favour of three hours. A couple of weeks ago, she told the House that she was in favour of 40 hours and spoke to proposals on that basis. Now she is put up to defend 24 hours. She is all over the place and the Government are all over the place. This is a completely arbitrary period being bandied around.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has already said, the proposed period is wholly out of line with international practice. Even 24 hours is much longer than the period allowed by statistical services of other developed economies. That is why, when the Treasury Committee came to look into this matter, we looked hard at it and settled on a figure of three hours. A case can be made for four hours, six hours or whatever, but even 24 hours is far too long. More important than that, the figure is completely arbitrary. It is simply a guessing game.
	Then there is the issue of who should actually decide. I certainly welcome the Government's proposal to seek parliamentary approval for what is decided. I welcome the 12-month review of how the arrangements work. I welcome the fact that there will be a degree of consultation before those arrangements are set in stone, but what is the point of consulting everyone when it has already been announced that the period will be reduced from 40 hours to 24 hours? What is there then to consult on? The Prime Minister has said that the Government changed their mind and that the maximum period will now be 24 hours. What is the point of beginning a process of consultation on something when an announcement about it has already been made?
	The Minister has said from the Dispatch Box this afternoon that she wants a meaningful role for the board. Let me remind the House that we are setting up an independent statutory body to deal with statistics, to take them out of the hands of politicians and to put them on an independent footing. Now she tells us that on the key issue of pre-release—the privilege given to Ministers so that they can spin material in advance of the announcement of a particular statistical series—the board will not determine what happens and will not, in fact, be meaningfully involved.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman was once a Minister. Did he spin figures to which he had privileged access as a Minister?

Michael Fallon: I was never senior enough a Minister to be entrusted with figures even to try to spin. What is interesting is that the Treasury Committee report was signed by no fewer than six former Ministers who were all quite content for the advance period to be reduced from more than 40 hours to just three. The issue is not simply the spinning of statistics, but the notice involved when Ministers know that a bad series is just about to be published. It is perfectly possible—sadly, we have seen it from this Government—for Ministers to arrange other statistics and other news to be announced to cover that particular negative line of statistics on that particular day. As we well know, the Government are fully capable of burying bad news when they feel like it.
	We need to take all that out of the hands of Ministers and have it determined by a statutory board. What is the point of setting up a statutory board if the one key political issue of pre-release is the one issue that the board is unable to decide on in the end? We should support the Lords amendment.

Paul Flynn: I disagree on what is the central issue of the Bill. For me, the central issue is the independence of the statistics board. That is not a new issue. I recall raising the concerns of the statisticians working in my constituency with the then Prime Minister in 1989. They were concerned about moving control of statistics from the Cabinet Office to the Treasury. They were right to be concerned about the independence of the figures and right to fear that they might be manipulated. Their argument then was that the Treasury had the greatest vested interest in manipulation of the figures. I received a letter from Margaret Thatcher, who was Prime Minister at the time, stating that it was terribly unworthy to make such a suggestion and reassuring me that the director, Jack Hibbert, had assured her that if there were any ministerial interference in the figures, he would resign.
	I am afraid that we have now clearly reached a position—based partly on fact, but mostly on fable—of great cynicism about the objectivity of Government statistics. There is a conception of spin, and the Government to their great credit have introduced the Bill, which has been hailed as one of the most important of the whole Parliament and on a par with the decision to grant independence to the Bank of England in deciding interest rates. That is absolutely right.
	I regret that we are in a position of disagreement over the question of pre-release. It is unfortunate that the Bill may well be marred as a result of it. The Government have been extremely generous in accepting many of the proposed amendments. Furthermore, the 1,300 of my constituents who work in the statistics office hail this Bill as a measure that will give new authority and new value to their work. There is doubt about the notion of spin, but it is exaggerated, and I am sure that the Government fully intend to have a period in which no excessive use of spin is made. The days of spin are gone. No Government in their right mind would use spin, because it is so counter-productive, but the Government must have some advance notice so that they can prepare their case.
	I will support my party and Government if this matter is pressed to a vote. However, I say to the Minister that it will be regrettable if the Bill goes from this House with this apparent, but not indelible, stain on it. Otherwise, it could have gone forward with the unanimous support of the other place, the Treasury Committee and other experts in the field, including my constituents who are professional statisticians.

Angela Eagle: The debate has resembled others on the matter, both those in which I have participated and those that took place before my appointment.
	During the passage of the Bill, the Government have moved to meet the views of all sides. As a result, we have made real changes. I welcome the generous acknowledgement of that by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) also acknowledged that we have made considerable changes to the Bill during its passage.
	We have amended clause 25, on the board's duty to produce and publish reports, to clarify that all reports must be laid before the devolved Parliaments. In clause 7, we have changed the board's objective, to underscore its role in promoting and safeguarding statistics that "serve the public good". In clause 10, we have changed the name of the code of practice, to emphasise its applicability to all statistics. We have granted the board a duty to comment on those statistics that it felt should be subject to the assessment process, which is an important aspect of this afternoon's debate, and we have clarified that when such statistics are produced by a Minister of the Crown, the Minister must state publicly when the board's request will be complied with; and if not, why not.
	We have imposed a duty to comply with the code of practice. We have passed amendments to clarify the separation of functions between assessment and production of statistics, and to clarify the role, responsibilities and functions of the national statistician and executive office. We have passed the residual responsibilities for the board from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office. We have made a commitment, which will be enshrined in the Bill if the motion is passed, to consult the board on the content of the pre-release secondary legislation prior to its being laid before the House, and we have committed ourselves to consult publicly. We have announced that pre-release access will be tightened to 24 hours. We have made a commitment in principle to create a central publication hub through which all national statistics will be released in the new system, separating statistical releases from policy commentary. We have committed ourselves to review the pre-release arrangements after 12 months, including to assess whether they hinder the broader objective of increasing trust in statistics.
	That is a good structure to give the newly independent statistics board, as it provides a firm foundation and basis on which to begin and continue its work. It should be recognised that the Government have been very responsive. We will not put the figure of 24 hours in the Bill, because the system may evolve further. It has been 60 years since we last had a piece of primary legislation on statistics. I would not want to put such a provision on the face of the Bill when it might take another 60 years before another piece of primary legislation is introduced, as that might get in the way of further progress. It is therefore only sensible, and justified by experience of primary and secondary legislation, to put the 24-hour figure in a statutory instrument, rather than in the Bill.

Philip Hammond: What is being suggested is that the 24-hour maximum that the Prime Minister has proposed should be included in the Bill. The Minister is resisting that on the ground that she needs flexibility for legislation to evolve. Is she seriously suggesting that it might evolve in the direction of the maximum pre-release time increasing?

Angela Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman also seriously suggesting that when the Prime Minister makes a statement on the Floor of the House his word is not to be trusted?

Robert Smith: The hon. Lady should recognise that Prime Ministers come and go and, as she said, the legislation must last a long time. The promise made by the current Prime Minister does not necessarily bind the next Prime Minister. The House, however, can pass legislation that will put that promise into law. The flexibility is there, because the 24-hour figure would be only a maximum. If she is seriously suggesting that a longer period than 24 hours is necessary, and that is why she cannot put the figure in the Bill, she does not trust the Prime Minister's promise either.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to what I say. I made no suggestion that the Government were somehow intending to have a pre-release time that was longer than 24 hours. It is clear that 24 hours is a maximum.
	I have set out the long list of changes that the Government have made to the Bill during its passage. It is an impressive and substantial list, and the Government should be given credit for their willingness to listen and for the changes that they have made. The time is now right for the Government to get their Bill, and for the other place to realise that they should allow the Bill to complete its passage without further changes.
	All sides agrees that this is a desirable Bill, which enshrines in statute for the first time the independence of the Office for National Statistics and the UK statistical system. It makes huge improvements in the system and structure in place for the delivery of a trusted statistical system in the UK. The Bill is much too important to be put in jeopardy by the unelected Chamber continuing to send it back with demands for more changes, when we all now agree with 99 per cent. of what it contains. Moreover, the Government will wish to proceed quickly to appoint the new chair of the statistics board, with a parliamentary hearing and vote before the recess—the Treasury Committee is interviewing the gentleman in question this afternoon. That cannot seriously proceed without the Bill making progress. Nor can the establishment of a shadow board and the necessary preparatory work to achieve the independence of the Office for National Statistics by next April proceed quickly if the Bill's passage is further delayed.
	I hope that the Opposition will not press for a Division on the motion. Given the amendments that the other place has achieved, I further hope that it will realise that the time is now right for the Bill to proceed. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 190.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by the period of seven days.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jack Straw: I am going to speak to the motion as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to speak to the motion, which is on programming rather than the substantive matter. I will, of course, be guided by what he wishes to do.

Jack Straw: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My mind was elsewhere.
	I think I owe the House a brief explanation of the motion —[ Interruption. ] No, just a brief presentation. The short story is that the business motion will extend the deadline for the Bill by just seven days. I am moving the motion because the Government have tabled quite significant amendments, which I hope will meet the anxieties expressed both in this House and the other place. If we are to complete the business, it is important that we allow ourselves an extra week beyond the existing deadline.
	Let me explain the situation to hon. Members who might not be aware of it. There is a deadline because this is a carry-over Bill. Under Standing Order No. 80A, such Bills usually last for only one year; tomorrow would be this Bill's deadline. The slight paradox is that hon. Members on both sides of the House support the principle of the Bill.
	The remaining issue is whether and when the Bill should be extended to police and prison custody. The Government have tabled significant amendments in an effort to address concerns, but we will of course need time to debate them.

Nick Herbert: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has moved the motion. As late as last night, Baroness Ashton, the Minister in the other place, said that the Bill was hanging in the balance and that there was
	"little to be gained by extending the time available...simply to prolong the passage of the Bill between this House and the other place."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 137.]
	The tabling of the motion at the eleventh hour ensures that the Bill will not fall on Friday and that we will have more time to consider it.
	We are in unusual, if not uncharted, waters. It is exceptional for the other place to ask this House to think again by insisting for a fourth time. The fact that the other place has voted to include within the Bill's remit the deaths of people in custody in police and prison cells no fewer than five times shows the strength of feeling. Indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their feelings about the matter.
	The Bill received its First Reading in this House a year ago. It would have been quite wrong to allow the Bill to fall when the power to extend the timetable lay in the Government's hands. The Secretary of State was therefore right to move the motion.
	We will debate the substantive issue shortly, but the Government have already conceded the principle that deaths in custody should be covered by the Bill. At the moment, that will happen by order. We have been discussing when that should happen. There is no point in extending the time for debate if the Government are unwilling to move on the question of when that should happen, or to tell the House more about their concerns about the immediate introduction of such a provision. We will now have time to reflect on those issues. However, given that it is clear that the Government again intend to reject the Lords amendments that propose an 18-month time frame, I hope that they will make a constructive proposal for a reasonable time frame. If they do not do so, I hope that the other place will be robust in insisting that its proposal is adhered to. We will listen with interest to what the Secretary of State says about that. However, I welcome the fact that he has conceded that further time is needed for reflection and possible compromise on this important issue.

Edward Davey: I welcome the motion, of course, because the Bill deserves eventually to reach the statute book. As the Secretary of State said, hon. Members on both sides of the House support the Bill's basic principle. In previous debates, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members were concerned about the suggestion that we were trying to kill the Bill. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has it made clear by tabling the motion that we were not trying to do that. We were trying to perform proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We were joining the other place to try to ensure that we had a Bill of the highest quality that addressed the concerns of hon. Members.

Ian Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman is sincere about not trying to kill the Bill, he will give the matter a good airing today, but vote for the Bill to go through.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but we need to hear from the Secretary of State what the concession will be. In due course, we will debate a Lords amendment that appears to go in the right direction, but we have not heard anything about time scales, which have been the issue time and again, both in the Commons and in the other place. Until we do, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the debate. We do not know whether the motion is the first phase of injury time or the penalty shoot-out. I hope that when the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box, he will provide a genuine concession, so that, all together, we can hold up the cup.

Douglas Hogg: I am not sure that I share the enthusiasm expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The purpose of the motion is to extend the timetable by seven days—I do not mind that at all because, in principle, I am in favour of the Bill. However, I am not in favour of the Government's position on the Lords amendments. The Secretary of State has tabled a package of amendments, which I studied with considerable interest. They are extraordinarily difficult to understand. If they were tabled as a basis for compromise, I rather doubt that they serve as such.
	The first thing that the Secretary of State must do, either in this debate or in the subsequent one, is tell us the extent to which the present package of amendments—and there are many of them—differs in kind from amendments Nos. 10A, 10C and 10D, which we debated on previous occasions. Are they substantially different, or not? Secondly, and quite differently, it is difficult for a layman to attach the various amendments to the Bill. It would be very much better, as we have seven days in which to do so, to produce a consolidated document so that Members of the Commons and the Lords can see in the Bill what we have been asked to do. I have expressed doubt that the Government amendments serve as the basis of compromise, which is why I am sceptical about what we have been asked to do. If they had provided such a basis, I would have been the first not to rise to my feet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I always hesitate to intervene on the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a matter of procedure, but there is a clear distinction between the matter that we are discussing—the extension of time—and the substantive matter that we will discuss in a short while. I rather sense that the remarks that he wishes to make are more appropriate to the debate that is to come, rather than to this Question.

Douglas Hogg: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am the last person to bandy words with the Chair, but you phrased your comments to me in such a way that I believe I can make the following response. The Secretary of State has come to the House to ask for extra time, on the grounds that he has introduced new proposals that may provide the basis for compromise. One is therefore entitled, in reply to his argument in support of the motion, to ask oneself whether it is the basis of compromise and whether it is a new package. That is why I have ventured to identify a few brief points, because I know that you will hold it against me if I go on for long in the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had it in mind to say very briefly why I do not think it is a new package or a basis for compromise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman patiently for a little longer, and see if we can ourselves achieve a satisfactory compromise.

Douglas Hogg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not need to strain your patience, because the points I want to make are brief, and I can express them in headline form.
	First, the powers in amendment (h)—one of the amendments that we debated previously—are permissive, not mandatory. Secondly, a timetable has not been prescribed. The phrase, "any category", means that the order that designates the categories may provide for a lesser set of circumstances than that provided for by the Lords amendment. Proposed subsection (2) enables the Government, in their order, to exempt circumstances and persons so that the categories are not covered in the same way as they are covered by the Lords amendments. Finally, the procedure to be followed is the affirmative resolution, which, while it is better than the negative resolution, does not allow for proper discussion or for amendment.
	Those are the points that I wanted to make in support of my argument. I do not think that Government amendment (h) is different in kind from amendment 10A, which we have previously debated. In any event, it is not the proper basis for compromise. If those things are true, I query why we are extending the time by seven days, because we do not have the basis for a proper settlement.

John Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has raised an interesting problem, and I should like to ask the Government why they chose seven days. Do they know something that we do not that guarantees that there can be a resolution within seven days, or is it that seven days take us to the point at which they would like to adjourn the House for a stunning 10 weeks, which are completely free for proper scrutiny, analysis and questioning? I fear that it is the latter, and I should have thought that more time is needed, given the apparent gap that still exists between my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government.

Jack Straw: I think there is a rough consensus that we ought to have more time in which to debate the Bill. As for the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I should have thought it was blindingly obvious that we sought the extra seven days because that would take us to the recess.
	The right hon. Gentleman made an uncharacteristically cheap point about the length of the recess. I may be wrong about this, but I do not recall his being particularly vocal when I offered the House an opportunity to vote for September sittings.

Douglas Hogg: I certainly was not!

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tells us that he certainly was not. In any event, the offer was made, there was a free vote, and the House in its wisdom voted against a September sitting and in favour of the tabling of parliamentary questions in early September. So there is not much of a point to be made in that regard.
	As for the substantive points that have been made, I think it best for us to proceed to the substantive debate, if the House agrees that we should extend the period by seven days.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by the period of seven days.

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

Lords message insisting on amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, disagreeing to Commons amendments in lieu and proposing amendments in lieu of those Commons amendments.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 10P and 10Q.

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2,3,5,6 and 10; does not insist on its Amendments 10K to ION in lieu but disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 10P and 10Q in lieu of those amendments; and proposes Government amendments (a) to (j) in lieu.
	For the benefit of Members who may be wondering on which piece of paper to find the amendments—I understand the concern of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has, as ever, been assiduous—they are on page 1663, as amended. As the rubric states, that is
	"due to the omission of a word in the Government motion."
	Members—particularly those who have been debating it at some length—are familiar with the history of the Bill. We tabled it because we thought it important that there should be offences in respect of corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide. We have already accepted in principle the difference—which I shall explain shortly—between our amendment 10A, rejected in the other place, and the amendments that we are about to discuss.
	The basis of last week's debate—which was dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and for almost all of which I was present—was not whether the Government had accepted the principle of the application of the offence to deaths in custody, but whether we would ensure that that principle was exercised at some reasonable time in the future. The difference involved is significant.
	I understand the objection that was raised. While doubts may be expressed and debating points made about the time that it has taken to travel this road to Damascus, at least we are on track now. The objection to the wording of amendment 10A lay in the fact that the provision for the Act to extend to deaths in custody—as it will—was discretionary, and was in the hands of the Secretary of State. The amendment stated
	"The Secretary of State may by order make amendments"
	to the law. It also stated what those amendments could cover, and proposed that the order should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Amendment (a) states that
	"a duty is owed to a person who, by reason of being a person within subsection (1A), is someone for whose safety the organisation is responsible".
	Subsection (1A) defines the different categories of custody. Amendment (b) defines a custodial institution, in a very wide sense, and a detained person. It also gives other definitions. Also, there is under amendment (h) the power to extend, but never to subtract from, the scope of custody as laid down by what will become section 2(1A). By order, that section will be able to
	"include any category of person (not already included)".
	In both cases, that must be done by affirmative procedure.
	That is a significant change. Members of this House and the other place might argue about whether it is sufficient, and I will deal with the vexed issue of timing, but there is a significant difference between where we were and where we are now.
	It is clear—not least in respect of the civil injuries compensation measures of a few years ago—that where a Bill is extended by inserting the word "shall" instead of "may", legitimate and understandable expectations may arise that the measures concerned must be exercised. Neither I nor any other Minister proposes to add this duty to the Bill with the cynical idea that it will not be activated.
	I now wish to address the anxieties that were abroad—

Douglas Hogg: Before the Secretary of State moves on, let me say that his remarks highlight one of the problems in trying to relate a package of amendments to a Bill. I am unable to find in either the package or the Bill a statutory requirement that the Secretary of State should make an order implementing the duties in respect of the persons now designated as being covered. That is what I am looking for, but although it may well be in the package or the Bill, I cannot find it.

Jack Straw: The precise wording that the right hon. and learned Gentleman searches for is not in the Bill, so it is unsurprising that he cannot find it. I do not accept the gravamen of the point.  [Interruption.] As I have said, I will come on to the timing issue.
	As has been explained, the problem lies in some of the complexities of bringing the proposed legislation into force in respect of police services and the Prison Service. That has been debated at length. The issue is not whether the power should be extended to custody—that has been conceded—but the exact circumstances. I must take account—as must the Home Secretary in respect of her responsibilities—of the current environment in which both the police and the Prison Service operate. They do not wish for it suddenly to become okay for there to be deaths in custody—unexplained deaths, not deaths by natural causes—and for them not to be inquired into, or for those responsible for negligence or worse in respect of those deaths not to be subject to any sanction.
	I hope that all Members concede that there has over recent decades been a huge improvement in the treatment in police custody of persons arrested, from the moment of arrest. In my experience, there were never significant problems in the charge room; problems arose at the time of arrest, during transport to the police station and in the cells. Before we changed the law, one of the tasks that I, when I was Home Secretary, had to perform was act in effect as a final court of appeal on serious disciplinary appeals by police officers, some of which related to events in custody and dated back some years.
	There was a sea change as a result of the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the codes under it, changes in police culture, the courts rightly becoming less tolerant of improper behaviour inside police stations, and the introduction of closed circuit television—and subsequently an understanding by the police that they would be much better served if their behaviour in the custody areas and interview suites was recorded. Moreover, if there are unexpected or unexplained deaths in police custody, in almost all circumstances there is an immediate inquiry by the independent Police Complaints Authority. With the Prison Service, the circumstances are different, in that by that stage people have been sentenced—or at least, if they are awaiting trial, are not under interrogation.
	There have been significant improvements in the treatment of prisoners, as I have observed in the 10 years in which I have been in contact with the Prison Service. Improvements had been made before that as well, but we now have an effective inspectorate. The Bill will also place the Prison Service ombudsman on a statutory basis, which is another sign that we have listened to representations.
	There are anxieties in the police and the Prison Service that unless they have time to understand fully the extent of these obligations and take steps to implement them, the services—not at a senior level, but at a lower level—will start to become risk averse, and that could have many adverse consequences.

David Winnick: All of us have to accept that the police and the Prison Service will not be included immediately in the Bill when it becomes law. We have no illusions about that. What worries us—I am sure my right hon. Friend knows that the concern is widespread among Labour MPs and is by no means limited to the Opposition—is that it will be some considerable time before the police, and especially the Prison Service, are included. If my right hon. Friend could give some indication that inclusion will happen not too far in the future—perhaps in five or 10 years' time—it might satisfy some of us. I know that he is doing his best to try to find a compromise with the Lords, and I am pleased about that.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who have expressed their concern in robust but restrained terms. My colleagues and I have listened with great care and this has been an iterative process —[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) agrees with that.
	I ask my hon. Friend and the House to listen to what I am about to say before saying that the period is too long. My concern is to ensure that the proposal is implemented, but that that is done without the police and the Prison Service seizing up because they become too risk averse. Such things take time. Let me make it clear that we are not allowing the services some sort of bye for a period during which they are not under scrutiny. As has been accepted by everyone, those services are always, and properly, under intensive scrutiny, both in terms of their systems and when, tragically, an unexplained death in custody occurs.
	A reasonable period for managing the extension of the offence would be, we believe, something between five and seven years. I also believe that we should work on the basis of implementing the extension within an earlier time frame if at all possible. The pledge that I give to the House is that I will make every endeavour, as will other Ministers, to get it done in less time if that is at all possible. However, I ask the House not to underestimate the difficulties facing the Prison Service, which were the subject of some exchanges during Prime Minister's questions, and the police. I should be happy to have a knockabout about why the Prison Service is at capacity, but the truth is that that imposes its own pressures and demands on staff. I have the responsibility of managing those pressures in a way that is safe for both staff and inmates.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and also for the approach that he has adopted, but the period of time that he has identified is troublingly long. The problem is one of management, but he is suggesting that a structural problem exists. Given how the police and the Prison Service have operated over the years, I am very pessimistic about whether structural problems will ever be removed from the system. In respect of management difficulties, however, properly targeted plans and projects ought to be able to deliver the necessary changes in culture and practice within a reasonable time frame. I believe a period of five to seven years is excessively long, and it raises in my mind the anxiety that we are dealing with a structural problem. That should not be the case, because even under pressure, the police and the Prison Service should be able to deliver a level of service that would normally ensure that officers are not exposed to the risk of prosecution under this Bill.

Jack Straw: I do not disagree with the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and that is to some extent why I believe that what we are arguing about is not a great deal. As things stand, officers in the police and the Prison Service could easily be exposed to the risk of prosecution, if incidents of the kind that have been described in the past were to happen repeatedly. For example, a prison or police officer who commits an unlawful act that leads to death or injury has always been liable to prosecution: that has happened at various times in the past, and other offences are available that could apply to people responsible for outcomes of that sort.
	Thankfully, however, there are only a tiny handful of homicides in prison every year. In addition, there are about 60 to 70 incidents of self-inflicted harm and suicides annually. That is 60 or 70 too many but, tragically, such things are going to happen in the best ordered prison. We are doing a great deal to get the numbers down, and we are also working very hard with the police service to the same end.
	I agree that we should try to find a reasonable time that is less than five to seven years. I assure the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that I have no intention of sitting on my hands and saying, "Okay, that's fine." However, although I have a lot of experience of the Prison Service, I have in effect been abroad for five years, and I need to take some time to go into the detail about how long the period should be. The same is true of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the Home Office.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asks whether we are dealing with a structural or a management problem. One can never be certain, as some problems can be both. Structural changes can be dealt with by changes in management practice that are followed by changes in the culture. I do not want to argue about that, but the other truth is that we will benefit if we take some time over the work in hand. Bluntly, I do not want us to find ourselves in the situation that has faced certain organisations in respect of health and safety.
	The House of Commons is a famous example of that. An awful lot of time was spent on a risk assessment as to whether someone could go out through the double doors and run up a flag on the mansard-roof of Portcullis house. It was not until I insisted on taking the risk myself that we were able to break through the problem, with the result that the flag is now flying. Funnily enough, the introduction of a bolt changed everything.

Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: Of course I will, in one second. Some of the cultural issues involved in the problem need to be dealt with in any event, and that is why I promise the House that I shall pursue the matter as quickly as possible. However, I will not promise an overall time scale that I am not presently satisfied can be delivered. It may be uncomfortable for me to say that now, but that is better than being quite properly accused later of saying something just to get the legislation through, and producing a time scale that, for various reasons, we are unable to meet.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?

Jack Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).

Andrew Dismore: The time scale does seem rather long, but as I have said before, the date is more important than the length of time. May I put two suggestions to my right hon. Friend? First, will he consider coming back to the House with regular reports—say annually—on the progress towards implementation, which might make a significant contribution? Secondly, has he considered the possibility of different dates for different parts of the service? For example, the date for the police could be earlier than the date for the Prison Service, because the police could probably comply with the provisions much more quickly.

Jack Straw: First, I am happy to provide regular reports. I am open to suggestions, but I am certainly happy to ensure that there is a report at least once a year and, if there is a demand for it, more often than that. I hope that that is acceptable. That is a reasonable way of keeping us all on our toes on the issue. Secondly, it is perfectly possible for the introduction to take place on a phased basis. I certainly have it in mind that we might be able to do that.

Elfyn Llwyd: As a criminal lawyer, I was involved in the implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that Act was phased. Although the Act involved a huge cultural change, it has worked perfectly well. The whole package came in, however, in a matter of one year to 18 months. I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore): the police might be able to come up to speed sooner than the Prison Service. However, this is a worthy Bill, and providing too long a delay for the Prison Service tends to give the wrong message outside the Chamber.

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and he is absolutely right about PACE. I was in practice for only a short while in the 1970s, but the situation then was patently unsatisfactory. People said we should move away from the judges rules and the rather informal arrangements that allowed all kinds of short cuts to be taken, and which ultimately undermined confidence in the police, as well as in the criminal justice system. However, I disagree with him slightly—well, more than slightly—on the time scale. He may recall that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was introduced in the Parliament of 1979 to 1983, but fell and had to be reintroduced, and then the codes had to be put together. So in practice the time scale was longer, although it may not have been as long as the one that I have suggested in this instance.

Edward Davey: The Secretary of State needs to understand what he is asking the House to agree to. First, he is asking us to agree to a time scale that is not going to appear in the Bill. Secondly, he is asking us to agree to a very long time scale, but he has given us no real justification of why that is needed. He has hinted and implied, but the House deserves to hear the detail of why he thinks we should accept such a long delay. Without that sort of detail, which we have not heard at any stage, the House cannot agree to what he is asking.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman has to make a choice and so, with great respect, has the other place. As a result of the concern that has been expressed by both sides, there has been a significant change in the nature of the Bill. There is a big difference between the inclusion in the Bill of a power that says "may", and the inclusion of custody in the Bill—where the only issue is when that is introduced. I have made quite significant and categorical remarks about the time scale for phasing in. As the hon. Gentleman may know, those remarks can be adduced in any proceedings if there is an issue of ambiguity.
	If I had the detail of exactly why we should have a certain time scale, I would bring it before the House. It is precisely because I have not got that detail, and I need time to produce it, that I have to be cautious in the time scale that I am offering. I am being perfectly frank with the House. Of course, if there were some calculation that showed the time scale should be x rather than y, the House should and would be allowed to see it. However, because of my concerns, the concerns expressed to me by the Prison Service, and the concerns expressed through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in respect of the police service, we have had to be cautious; I would like not to be so cautious. I have set out an overall time frame of five to seven years, but I have said that if we can get that number of years down, we will do so. I have agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon that we will provide reports on the situation at least annually, and from my experience of government I can tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that that will provide its own momentum, regardless of whether I am still in place leading on the Act in future, as I hope to be.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Secretary of State forgive me for reminding him that I have been the Minister with responsibility for prisons? I have had the advantage of presiding over the Prison Service, as has he; in my case, it was at the time when we moved to a private contract for transport to courts. The idea that it takes five to seven years to put in place new systems, give appropriate directions or ensure proper supervision is for the birds. That should be done in a year or two, not five to seven years. That, I am afraid, is a failure on the part of Ministers not to insist. The Secretary of State has got to insist; that is what he is there for.

Jack Straw: Well, I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether a more effective Minister than I am. He was an effective Minister, if I may say so—I will cut out the sarcasm. I would like to be in the position that he set out, but I am not, although I hope to be. Meanwhile, it would be wrong of me to offer a time scale to which we could not adhere. I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between the parties on that point. The last thing that I shall say, because others wish to contribute in this relatively short debate—

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: I wonder whether I might just wind up, as I am taking up other people's time. We have moved a great deal, and we have extended the time, so that we do not have to consider the matter in the terrible rushed manner that I have sometimes seen used by both parties when in government. We have shifted; there is no question about that.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very patient. It might help his case if he told the House what changes would need to be made to custody arrangements to allow custody to be included in the legislation.

Jack Straw: If I knew that at this stage—I have been in post for just under three weeks—I would tell the House. I see the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham screwing up his face, but it is precisely because I do not know the answer that I am having to be cautious, and so is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That is the truth of it. If I had the information, why would I not give it to the House? Neither my ministerial colleagues nor I have any wish to be in a situation in which there is distrust and suspicion about our motives. It is thought that we have made up our concerns and our caution in respect of the police service and the Prison Service, but we have not. What I have said is not everything, but it is certainly a great deal, and I hope that the House and the other place will now accept the amendments, and what I have said on the record, in the spirit in which they were intended.

Dominic Grieve: Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to admit that there is a certain irony to this debate. I wonder what would have happened if the Government had originally included deaths in custody as part of the body of the Bill—that is the form in which it now appears—and if the provisions on death in custody had come in with all the other orders. The usual assumption made in Parliament is that if the Government are legislating, they wish to implement something. My experience, from my five or six years' involvement with criminal justice legislation, has led to the realisation that much of the legislation that the Government pass never gets implemented; indeed, at times in the past five years, I have participated in the repeal of legislation that, having been put on the statute book two or three years earlier, was never brought into force by order.
	In a sense, the Government are hoist with their own petard. They displayed massive intransigence about the whole concept of deaths in custody, particularly in the persona of the previous Home Secretary, who came to the House on Report and expressed himself in vituperative terms on the mere suggestion that deaths in custody should be included in the body of the legislation. The Government now find themselves facing a serious crisis of confidence over their willingness ever to implement, or at least within a reasonable time frame, what many Members on both sides of the House regard as a very important part of the legislation.
	So we find ourselves arguing over a single issue: how long it will take to implement what is now pretty much in proper form for deaths in custody. Although we have never laid a benchmark for the implementation of other parts of the Bill because we are confident that the Government will move swiftly to observe the terms of the Warwick agreement, quite apart from the consensus across the House that it is a beneficial piece of legislation, we are arguing over the fact that the Government have been dragged reluctantly into including deaths in custody and now wish to postpone the evil day for as long as possible. I am not surprised that the other place has become increasingly insistent that 18 months ought to be sufficient.
	That raises a difficult issue for the right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the last thing that I have wanted to do is to make party political capital, but a period of five to seven years is a long time.

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman asks about the date of implementation of the main part of the Bill, I am happy to announce that it is our intention that it be implemented on 6 April 2008. As he knows, it is for the convenience of business that Acts like this, which affect business, are implemented on one of two set dates in the year. I hope that is helpful.

Dominic Grieve: That is indeed helpful, and it is exactly the sort of time frame that I would have expected. It highlights, if I may say so, the difference between what will be done to everybody else, and what will affect the Prison Service, the custodial environment and the police. The right hon. Gentleman earlier prayed in aid the health and safety legislation. As I think he knows, that is the area in which I practised in the years before coming to this place— [Interruption.] I did not introduce the legislation. I prosecuted on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive or local authorities, or represented those who got had got themselves into trouble.
	Defendants who had killed their own employees—that happens all the time—used to say, "It's all so difficult. Bringing about the culture change in our organisation has proved so problematical. We do our best, but sometimes things go wrong. We accept that, and if we only had longer, we might have avoided this." There are great lamentations, to which Parliament has responded serially with the word "Tough"—that is, "Tough maybe, but we want to bring about the culture change, and you are going to have to take the necessary steps to meet the requirements."
	What troubles me is that what we are hearing from the Government is, "The culture is going to be so difficult to change and we don't want to press the services all that much." This is not an issue that can be dictated by the current problems in the Prison Service. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why. I am sure he would be the first to admit that the idea that over the next 100 years the Prison Service or the police will not have to cope again with periods when there are problems of overcrowding is a fantasy. That has been a perennial issue for a long time, yet I detect that he is waiting for a magical moment when suddenly the problems of the Prison Service are sufficiently assuaged that the measure can be implemented.
	However, the issue is a managerial one, and it is precisely in periods of difficulty that the services will be put on their mettle. The idea that that will lead to some terrible problem is wrong. If they carry out their duties properly, even if there are deaths in custody, there will be no risk of prosecution. It is in cases where there has been gross negligence, which is what we are discussing, that the services will be called to account.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend constantly says that the problem is a managerial one and in a sense it is, but ultimately it is one that requires the exercise of political will, because the managers will never want to do what the measure requires of them. It is a ministerial, political problem, not primarily a managerial one. Managers will respond to what they are told to do.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I entirely agree. It is necessary for the Government to show leadership in this matter. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the provisions that we have put on to the statute book will not lead to individual prosecutions—the prosecutions will be of the corporate entities involved. That may lead, I suppose, to resignations and public shaming, but those are the very things that the Government say—I happen to agree with them—will be a good thing as regards the commercial sector, so why are these particular organisations being mollycoddled and protected in a wholly excessive way?

Ian Stewart: It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to pray in aid the line that the Government took when he argued in Committee that there should be no named person and no imprisonment sanction. I am wholly in favour of considering this complex matter, but not at the expense of the Bill, which it is imperative that we get through. He understands that a trade-off was involved when the Lords tabled these amendments, which meant that other issues important to some of us, such as corporate probation, fell off the end of the table. This is a compromise situation, and I urge Members not to push it to the point where we lose the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: First, I wish to see the Bill on the statute book, and I hope that the way in which the Opposition have conducted themselves throughout its passage illustrates that hugely. Secondly, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but do not think that it is a particularly good one. The Bill does indeed have compromises embodied in it. He was minded to include personal liability of directors and would have been happy for them to go to prison for their part in corporate manslaughter offences. Apart from the fact that I did not support that—I thought that it was wrong in principle and explained why—if we had it in the Bill now, that might colour my view of the extension to the custodial environment, but it is not there, and for very good reason. As a result, we are not talking about prison governors, or managers, going to prison but about the corporate responsibility of these bodies.
	I want to bring my remarks to a close as we have little time left. Let me say this to the Secretary of State. The Government need to show leadership and to give an assurance to this House, or in the other place when the Bill returns there, on a reasonable time frame for implementation, as five to seven years is inordinately long. It may be a period that is much further away than next April but nevertheless clearly shows the Government's will to implement immediately the steps that are required at a managerial level and ensure that these services come on board within a reasonable period. I urge the Secretary of State to do that, because if he does not there is a risk that this ping-pong will continue. Listening to his remarks, many in this House and in the other place will remain profoundly depressed— [ Interruptio n. ] I will happily give way to him if he wishes to intervene.

Jack Straw: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but he is advancing a very weak argument. I did give a time frame, although he does not agree with all of it. I said that the maximum period was between five and seven years, and I very much hope to do it in less than that. I have said that we will have an annual report. I will deal with some of the other points that he raised in terms of getting that time down. However, it seems that he is now trying to find excuses for continuing to block the Bill, and I find his arguments unconvincing.

Dominic Grieve: I am sorry about the right hon. Gentleman's tone, because that is the very thing that I do not seek to do. I am actually trying to show him the way home. I think that we are very close to resolving this issue, but I respectfully suggest to him that that requires the Government to be a little more proactive on the timetable than they have been.
	I cannot support the measures this afternoon and I urge my colleagues to maintain their support for the Lords amendment. However, before the Bill goes back to the other place, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consult his colleagues and point out to them that the time frame is too long, so that even if an assurance that the time frame will be shorter cannot be given here, it can be given in the other place.

Edward Garnier: Perhaps I can help the Government, through my hon. Friend. I have noticed during the past 18 months, in visiting about 25 prisons and young offender institutions, that the health service system there is overloaded by mental health patients and those affected by substance abuse, which may be causing the Government to want to pause. If we were to come to an agreement with the Government about what might be a reasonable time frame within which they could mend health services in the prison system, we might reach a proper agreement. However, I urge my hon. Friend not to allow anything anywhere near five to seven years to be part of such an arrangement.

Dominic Grieve: I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend that for us, five to seven years is far too long. However, and I want to emphasise this, the Secretary of State is going in the right direction; I just urge him to take an extra leap of leadership to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Ian Stewart: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's feelings about five to seven years being too long. Will he tell us what he thinks would be a reasonable length of time?

Dominic Grieve: I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Justice and he knows my views on this matter very well. I do not think that it will be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to find a formula, and he can speak to us at any stage if he wishes to, or come to the Dispatch Box. I heard some voices shouting out various suggestions. We are not involving ourselves in an auction here; it would not be difficult to find a solution that is reasonable for him, the services and the integrity of the Government. I say to him that otherwise, it would look as if leadership had vanished in this area.
	Those are my concluding remarks. I thank the Secretary of State for what he has done because I am aware that it might have taken quite a lot even to get this far, but I ask him to go the extra mile, or perhaps the extra year or two.

Chris Mullin: We are, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, inching forward in the right direction. I have been present on half a dozen occasions when this issue has been visited and it is the first time I have heard any form of time frame escape from the lips of a Minister. That is progress, therefore, and we must acknowledge it. It is also a recognition of the fact that my right hon. Friend has got a grip on an issue that has been drifting for a long time. He is well known for his extremely sensitive political antennae, and he is also a leading exponent of the political principle that when one is in a hole, one should stop digging. I have a great deal of confidence that we are moving in the right direction.
	My right hon. Friend referred to cultural change. That is what is required; it was what was required in 1983 before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and it is required here. We are up against a mighty vested interest in the shape of the Prison Service and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, when we come up against a vested interest, we have to face it down. It is not a management issue, but one of political will.
	The five-to-seven-year period mentioned is, as others have said, a disappointingly long period, progress though it is. On past form, I think that we shall have to run through three or four Secretaries of State before we reach five or seven years. If one looks at the record in certain Departments—not necessarily the ones that my right hon. Friend has occupied—there is a high turnover of Ministers. After three or four Secretaries of State, one can end up far removed from the original good and sincere intentions that my right hon. Friend doubtless has.

Jack Straw: What I have said, for those who appreciate the way in which the courts view such matters, is significant. The Secretary of State's functions continue, regardless of the person who occupies the position. As a matter of correction, I was Home Secretary for four years and Foreign Secretary for five years.

Chris Mullin: I am well aware of that, and I regard my right hon. Friend's career as one of the most successful of any member of the Government. However, if he considers other Departments, he will realise that we are on our seventh and eighth Minister for various responsibilities. Time is short and I therefore ask him not to provoke me into listing them, but I could do that.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will take up the sensible suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on phasing in.

Jack Straw: I will.

Chris Mullin: I am glad to hear that. If it is easier to deal with the police, perhaps that could be done first.
	I shall support my right hon. Friend today, but in the hope that the extra time that he has won will be used to nail down a credible time scale and to include it in the Bill. I am confident that, with him in charge, we will get there in the end. I hope that I shall not be disappointed.

Edward Davey: Grossly negligent management that leads to the death of somebody in custody is wrong now; it was wrong last month and it was wrong five years ago. Why is the Secretary of State not prepared to make it an offence for another five years? When the issue is presented so starkly, one realises that the Government's position is not strong.
	The Government appear to be prepared to make some sort of concession, but it has been dragged out of them and, even now, it is not clear where we will end up. The Government must do better than the Secretary of State's offer today. He rightly said that we are considering a maximum—I am grateful for that—and that he wants to lessen the time. He also said that he wants annual reports.
	However, other Departments have been braver and more certain about what they can achieve. I have examined many public service agreement targets and I remember one from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reduce the production of poppies for opium in Afghanistan by 60 per cent. in three years. The Foreign Office did not achieve that, but it was its main target. It intended to do that brave thing. Yet the Ministry of Justice claims that it cannot sort out in five to seven years the management failures to which it now admits in the Prison Service and the police service. I am sorry, but that it is not good enough. It is wrong and the Government need to push harder.
	In previous debates here and in the other place, we asked why the Government are not prepared to move faster. Why were not they previously prepared to give even an indicative time scale? We have not received good answers. The only answer that we received before today was that they were worried about creating an incentive for risk aversion in the services that we are considering. When we debated the matter, convincing examples of risk aversion were not given. Risk aversion in the case of someone who may be vulnerable and prone to attempting suicide is a good idea. One must err on the side of caution to ensure that that person does not take their own life. The Government's argument could therefore be reversed. The sooner the proposals are introduced, the more likely prison governors and senior police officers are to take action to ensure that such deaths do not occur.
	I accept that the Secretary of State has to deal with senior managers who will tell him that they are under extreme pressure in trying to deliver other Government objectives and worried that they cannot deliver the new provision safely for him.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about risk aversion. Perhaps he would care to remind the House that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a necessary pre-condition of prosecution. That would take account of many anxieties that underpin the Secretary of State's demand for five to seven years.

Edward Davey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. It is why the Secretary of State should say to senior managers, who, frankly, represent vested interests, "I am sorry, but we want leadership." The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) stressed the need for that. The Secretary of State, as the politician in charge, should demand that senior managers get their act together. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request of a Secretary of State to make of senior managers.
	The Secretary of State has a good reputation in all parts of the House for showing leadership. The fact that he has already been prepared to concede in a way that his predecessor was not is very welcome. However, his reputation will be even stronger and will deserve great praise if he moves further. I urge him to do that. When those in the other place reflect on this debate and all the voices that have been heard throughout the House, they will say that the Secretary of State has further to travel.

Andrew Dismore: May I say in response to earlier comments in the debate that everybody in the House wants to see the Bill passed? Indeed, I have been campaigning for it for 20 years, and I do not think that anybody is trying to frustrate it. Also, the amendments before us are a major change from the original position, which is very good. Personally, I would always like to see "shall" rather than "may". My right hon. Friend referred to the criminal injuries compensation case. In fact, I was the solicitor in that case on behalf of the appeal of the applicants against the then Conservative Government, and I was pleased that we beat them in the House of Lords.
	Putting that to one side, I have to say that the real issue that we are talking about is the timetable. Like others, I am concerned about the timetable, but giving a date is at least a starting point. I saw that Lord Hunt, speaking on behalf of the Opposition in the other place, agreed with me that
	"naming the day is more important than the specific date."
	I therefore hope that the Opposition will not resile from that. In response to the debate, my right hon. Friend Baroness Ashton said:
	"the Government are committed to bringing the custody issue forward through the order-making power"—
	as it then was—
	"when it is clear that we not only understand the implications of the legislation as it now stands but have taken part in discussions with those directly affected, in order to ensure that the implications of such a power are fully understood in public policy especially as it applies to the Prison Service and to custody in general."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 146-49.]
	That is absolutely right. That is what should happen: we should work out what the implications of the proposal are and then come forward with the date when we are going to implement it. That has not happened, but if it were to happen, we would come up with a much earlier date. I understand the position that my right hon. Friend is in, however. He cannot do that. In the seven days that we have, perhaps more work could be done on that and perhaps we could find a compromise timetable—three to five at the outside perhaps, but with the proposal being implemented much earlier, as I have suggested, for the police, for example, who do not have the problem of overcrowding in police cells. We heard about the problem of risk aversity, but there is no issue of risk aversity in some of those places. What we are looking for is the deterrent effect, which the proposal would bring into effect, to ensure that things are done properly.
	I welcome my right hon. Friend's undertaking that we will have regular reports on implementation, so I shall certainly be voting with the Government. There is still a little way to go, but they have moved significantly by naming the date, which was the key demand when this battle started many months ago.

Douglas Hogg: You were kind enough to call me in the first debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief.
	First, it would be churlish not to welcome what has been done thus far, and I think that the House would acknowledge that. Secondly, it is the view of most hon. Members participating in this debate that five to seven years is too long. To take up the point that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made, it is worth reminding ourselves that unsafe systems, which are basically what we are talking about, are wrong in principle.
	I recognise that the Secretary of State is concerned about what, for brevity, I would loosely refer to as unfair prosecutions, which would come at a time that was oppressive to management. That is what is really worrying him. However, that concern is actually met to a very high degree by the requirement in the Bill that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a necessary precondition to prosecution.

Jack Straw: That is one anxiety and it takes some time—I hope as short as possible—to work through, but another anxiety is that which people who have not been party to these debates feel inside such complicated systems. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was all a matter of political will. If it were all a matter of political will, things would be dead easy, but there must also be judgments, which is why, if I may say so, the target on drugs in Afghanistan did not quite work out as intended, so the issue involves both. That is what we are having to manage, but we will do it as quickly as we can.

Douglas Hogg: I was coming on to my fifth and last point. I accept what the Secretary of State has said, but culture changes have to be driven from above because they will always be resisted. I recall being the Whip in the Home Office when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was introduced and there was enormous resistance from within the police to many of the changes, particularly interviewing, forced through by PACE. The Secretaries of State insisted and the management will always respond to insistence. If the Secretary of State were to put forward a 12-month or 24-month period, I suspect that that would be longer than need be, but I am sure that the House and the other place would agree to it. That is the sort of period that is required—not five to seven years. That is all I want to say.

John Redwood: I, too, believe that the Secretary of State for Justice has moved in the right direction and I thank him for that. He is one of the few Labour Ministers I would trust: I think that his word means something in this House and I am sure that he is well intentioned. He must understand, however, how difficult it is for us to accept his word when it relates to a period after the next general election. It is extremely unlikely that either he or a Labour Government would then be in office— [Interruption.] Yes, I obviously hope that there will be a change of governing party to the Conservatives, but there might be no overall control in the House of Commons—and there are all sorts of possibilities that would make it very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to honour his pledge.
	In the meantime, as the Liberal Democrats so rightly pointed out on this occasion, it must be a matter of grave concern to all of us that a decent man who is Secretary of State for Justice cannot reassure the House that custody in this country is being sufficiently well managed for it to be under this legislation. He is newly in post and trying to get to grips with it. He tells us that his officials are telling him that there could be acts of gross negligence leading to death in custody, but that they do not feel that anything can yet be done about it. Surely that is a matter of grave urgency.

Jack Straw: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman that no official has said that to me and I do not believe that any officials have said it at any stage to any of my right hon. Friends. At no stage has that argument been advanced. None of us wants to see gross negligence or failure in systems. A huge amount has already been done in the police and prison services to ensure that such a situation does not develop.

John Redwood: I am glad to hear that reassurance, but it makes it even stranger that we are dealing with a period of five to seven years. I shall therefore vote with my Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Jack Straw: This has been an interesting debate and I am grateful for the acknowledgement of the changes made as a result of this set of amendments. I am pleased better to have informed the right hon. and learned Member for—is it still Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)?  [Interruption.] Well, it changes every election.  [Interruption.] I had forgotten that Grantham is Labour now! It is significant that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is better informed about the amendment.
	A number of slightly odd claims have been made. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about the Prison Service over the next 100 years—a much longer time frame than I have in mind. He then said that there would always be pressure on the Prison Service. I have clocked that; we bear it mind, because at some stage over the next 100 years, there may well be a Conservative Government. I can offer the hon. Gentleman some fraternal advice—not to be too free and easy with the suggestion that if there were a Conservative Government, there would never be any problems with prisons. I do not believe that that would be the case.
	The hon. Gentleman then said that implementing the law quickly could lead to some "terrible problem". That is nonsense. I never said that it would lead to a terrible problem. I have been careful in what I said, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends. What I have said is that we need time to assess the situation, and we do. I apologise to the House for having to say that, but it just happens to be true.
	To my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I say that as well as undertaking to publish at least an annual report on progress, which I am happy to do, we will certainly look carefully into implementing these measures by stages. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for saying that he at least trusts me—he then made it clear that he certainly would not trust a Minister in a Conservative Government, and we have noted that too. We do intend to take such action; otherwise, we would not put such a provision in the Bill. The quicker we can make progress, the less people will have to look into a crystal ball, because they will be able to see from the action taken that we are doing it.
	I urge the whole House to recognise that considerable progress has been made, and that it is now time for agreement, both on what is in the Bill, as we hope, and on what I have said.

Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 188.

Question accordingly agreed to.

offender management bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Offender Management Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 11th December 2006 and 28th February 2007 (Offender Management Bill (Programme) and Offender Management Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 6, 22, 11, 14, 4 , 1 to 3, 5, 7 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 21, 23 to 56.
	 Subsequent stages 
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —[Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

Offender Management Bill

Clause 3
	 — 
	Power to make arrangements for the provision of probation services

Lords amendment: No. 6.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 9 and the Government motion to disagree, Lords amendment No. 12 and the Government motion to disagree, and Lords amendment No. 13 and the Government motion to disagree.

David Hanson: May I begin by expressing the Government's appreciation of the very careful scrutiny that the Bill received in another place? Much good work has been done and many improvements have been made, and I thank my noble Friend Baroness Scotland and colleagues in another place and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for the work that they undertook in guiding the Bill through Committee and another place. As Members will know, I took up my post eight weeks ago, but the Bill has been in existence for a considerable period, so I pay tribute to my colleagues for the work that they have done.
	The concerns that hon. Members expressed on Report and Third Reading have now been addressed in another place and we have a better Bill as a result. It may be helpful to remind the House and colleagues of what the Bill will achieve and why it is so important. The statutory duty to deliver probation services lies with 42 individual probation boards, which are working to centrally-set targets and whose chief officers are directly line-managed by the director of probation in Whitehall. The arrangement was introduced after the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 was passed, and it has delivered a great deal. Some 97 per cent. of pre-sentence reports to magistrates courts are delivered within the deadline specified by the court, and there has been a considerable increase in the number of unpaid work completions—55,000 last year, against a target of 50,000, which represents an increase of over 4,000 compared with 2005-06.
	We can be proud of the fact that probation workers are dedicated, are working strongly and have put into effect a number of key measures, including on unpaid work. However, the House would want me to understand the need to consolidate those gains. The task of tackling the issue of reoffending is a complex one, and we need to do the best that we can to ensure that the best available providers are engaged. To date, about 96 per cent. of services have been provided in-house by probation boards. We need to do more to involve other providers in support of the public sector, particularly, may I tell my hon. Friends, to support the work that it undertakes. We need, too, to move towards more outcome-focused arrangements that free providers from all sectors to innovate.
	The Bill as drafted lifts from probation boards the statutory duty for making arrangements for probation services, and places it firmly on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. It creates new public sector bodies, probation trusts, with which the Secretary of State may contract. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend will run services directly from Whitehall. What we are proposing, and what I hope the House will accept, is a coherent structure that enables services to be commissioned at an appropriate level with clear lines of accountability. Commissioning of services under the new arrangements—I hope that this will reassure all hon. Members—will take place at national, regional and local levels. That has been of concern to several of my hon. Friends, and I hope that the discussions that we have had during the passage of the Bill have helped them to understand where we are with the particular service that I am seeking to introduce.

Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend has just mentioned a very significant and welcome development in the way in which the Bill is considered. Does he see any merit in including that in the Bill, so that there can be no doubt that commissioning will take place at the most appropriate level—local, regional and, if necessary, national?

David Hanson: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps, having given some of the background, the Minister will now limit his remarks to the amendments under discussion.

David Hanson: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker, but commissioning at national, regional and local level, to which my hon. Friend referred, is exactly what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill, and the opposite of what the Lords amendment proposes. I can assure my hon. Friend that commissioning will take place at national, regional and local level. I say that for the simple reason that the issue is at the heart of the amendment that we are discussing.
	My hon. Friend asked whether we could at some point consider including that description in the Bill. I hope he will accept the spirit in which I have spoken today, the spirit in which I have spoken in other discussions about the Bill, and indeed the spirit that contrasts so starkly with the proposal from another place for commissioning only at local level.

David Anderson: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend agrees with Lord Falconer, who said about commissioning in his speech at the centenary conference of the probation service
	"Sometimes it will be done regionally or nationally... but I see this as the exception rather than the rule"?
	Local commissioning would be the norm, he said.

David Hanson: That goes to the heart of the amendments, which is why I have focused on it from the outset. I entirely agree with what the then Lord Chancellor said at the conference. There will be a mixture of commissioning. Some will be at national level, because in certain cases and with certain contracts that will be the best way of securing a strong and efficient service. There will also be a strong role for those commissioning work at regional level. As my hon. Friend surely accepts, economies of scale will sometimes be necessary, and some services will be best purchased and commissioned at that level. However, there will also be a need for local probation trusts to act not just as service deliverers but as commissioners of services from the voluntary sector, or from others, providing a proper service to help prevent reoffending at local level.

John Grogan: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the proportions of the total probation work that he expects to be commissioned at national, local and regional level? Will more than 50 per cent. definitely be commissioned at local level?

David Hanson: I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurances about what will be commissioned at national, regional or local level. What I will say is that it is—I hope—self-evident that certain services need to be provided at national level, and others at regional level. I hope and believe that a considerable amount will be provided at local level, but for reasons I think my hon. Friend will understand, I am not in a position to assure him of that today. We need to examine in detail some of the services that will be provided.
	I can say today that, in the case of most services, regional commissioners will make arrangements with lead providers, who, in turn, will act as both providers and commissioners for the probation area. Provided that their performance meets the required standard, as I believe it will in most cases, the lead providers will be the probation trusts. They will concentrate on delivering core offender management work, while commissioning interventions at local level. I believe that they will welcome that, and that it will help the Bill's passage through the House of Commons.
	The Government oppose the Lords amendments because they seek to undermine the entire basis of our proposals to improve the delivery of probation services. When they were debated in another place, their supporters were unequivocal in their backing for greater involvement of providers from other sectors, particularly the voluntary sector. Speaking to the amendments on behalf of the Opposition, Lady Anelay said:
	"We have no philosophical or political objection to probation services being provided from outside the existing public provision."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 2007; Vol. 692 c. 552.]
	That was consistent with what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said when summing up for the Opposition on Third Reading. It is therefore hard for me to understand why the Opposition have tabled their amendments, as those who support them claim that the Government proposals in part 1 are centralising—but as I have explained, they are not. They allow the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor to determine what needs to be commissioned, as is his responsibility. There will therefore be clear accountability and responsibility in respect of what he at the national level asks regional commissioners to commission, and there will also be clarity in respect of what they in turn ask of local commissioning boards. The amendment would destroy that clear accountability and that focus in national, regional and local commissioning by removing completely the local element and not sufficiently clarifying the relationship between the Secretary of State and the local trusts.

Edward Garnier: The Minister is in danger of conflating two separate arguments and therefore of misleading himself. There is a distinction between my views on the amendments and the structure that the Bill provides and those of Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He disapproves of the contracting-out of what has until now been a state-provided service—that is what the argument over contestability is about. On the other hand, I have no philosophical objection to contestability, but I do have an argument with the Government—with which the hon. Gentleman might agree—about the top-down micro-management of the probation services from the Secretary of State's office via his various subordinate quango offices. So long as the Minister understands the distinction between those two, or possibly three, sets of arguments, he will not mislead himself or the House.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for ensuring that I do not mislead myself, but let me say that I am clear about the points I making to the House today. I am aware that my hon. Friends hold the views he has described on contracting out. I fully expect the vast majority of current probation boards—in future, probation trusts—to have sufficient quality to be able to secure services at local level and then be in a position to determine, with regional support and a national framework and direction, the services that they provide. I am also clear, however, that we will need to ensure that we raise the standards of probation trusts that do not meet the standards that we expect as, sadly, some current probation boards underperform. We must raise standards, and I have every confidence that we can do that within the framework of the public sector—with the vast majority of trusts remaining public sector-based and delivering services at the local level, and with support from regional commissioners and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	I do not support the amendments as they would remove the regional structure; it is claimed that services provided at regional level could not provide economies, and the issue of potentially underperforming probation trusts at the local level is not tackled, because no meaningful clarification is offered of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the trusts. The amendments would do a disservice to people whom all Members wish to be supported; we all want offenders in the probation service to be helped not to reoffend.
	There is an honest disagreement. I hold a different view from that held in another place, and I am trying to explain it. I hope that I will secure the support not only of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) but of my hon. Friends. The amendments sound appealing but they are not realistic, and Governments deal with reality. The proposals in part 1 of the Bill will enable probation services to be delivered by a range of providers, and to be tailored to local needs and set within a clear framework of accountability.
	That clear and consistent approach should be contrasted with that suggested by the amendments. It is claimed that the amendments provide for local commissioning, but they do not. They would give us the worst of all worlds. They do not provide the means to ensure greater involvement for other providers and they do not provide for any meaningful accountability. Nor do they provide the means for entering into a mature dialogue when concerns about performance arise, as they will with some underperforming boards, save for the blunt instrument of making provision elsewhere. That is not a format or mechanism that my hon. Friends would support in principle.
	As I have said, I am grateful for the contribution that the other place has made to the debate on this Bill. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends for their close scrutiny of some of the issues. Much progress has been made with the Bill during its passage and I hope that tonight we can make further progress with some of the amendments. As hon. Members will see with later amendments, the Government agree with some elements suggested in the other place. However, I cannot support amendment No. 6, nor can the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations or, dare I say it, the CBI. I know that that will help to drag my hon. Friends en masse into the Lobby. However, that is an important contribution, because the CBI has to work with the people in the probation service. The Local Government Association does not support the amendment either.
	I hope that the lack of support from those three organisations and the consideration that we have given the Bill today will persuade the House to reject the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that the Bill provides the possibility of determined commissioning at a national, regional and local level, in the interests of the probation service and offenders, with the objective of reducing crime.

Edward Garnier: I agree with the Minister that the Bill was considerably improved in the other place. I agree with the Attorney-General, when she said:
	"The Bill has a joint purpose: to improve the supervision of offenders and better to protect victims. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that what all have done in this House has been to that end. As the Bill moves back to the other place, we wish it God's speed."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 25.]
	I also agree with the Minister when he says that the motives of both Houses have been of the highest. Unusually for such a contentious Bill, party political argument has been mostly absent, and we have had some good arguments on it. We have had some rigorous and intellectual debates about the Bill's motives, and I hope that will continue this afternoon.
	That said, I shall now move away from that consensual spirit by telling the Minister that he should not describe the amendment as an Opposition amendment. We are seeking to defend an all-party and no-party set of amendments that were introduced in the other place. If he looks at the debate in the other place, especially on this amendment, he will find that Conservative peers—he quoted Baroness Anelay—Liberal Democrat peers, Cross-Bench peers and Labour peers went into the Lobby against the Government. The Minister is therefore seeking to overturn amendments that had all-party and no-party support in the other place. To reduce the argument to Government versus Opposition is to make a false point and devalue his arguments for resisting the amendments.
	I would explain the essential difference between the Minister and me by saying that the Opposition do not want probation services to be micro-managed from the top down—from the office of the Secretary of State for Justice. I should note in passing that, when the Bill began its life in this House before Christmas, we were of course talking about the Home Secretary.
	The hon. Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) might advance some collateral but different arguments, but we believe that, in certain circumstances, supervisory services could properly be contracted out to the third sector—charities, church groups and not-for-profit enterprises—and commercial enterprises.

David Hanson: Given what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, why would Stephen Bubb of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations say:
	"We do not believe that the amendments discussed in the Lords to clause 3...would provide the catalyst needed to increase the role of the third sector"?

Edward Garnier: I shall deal with that question head on. It is not surprising that an organisation such as ACEVO, which represents some of the country's biggest charitable organisations in this field—or that the CBI, which represents some of the biggest companies in the country—should prefer the convenience of bilateral relations with the Secretary of State for Justice or one of his subordinates. That subordinate could be the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, or it could be one of her subordinates—namely, a regional offender manager who is directly responsible, up the chain of command, to the Secretary of State.
	Such a system would be preferable for the organisations that I have mentioned, because they would not have to go through what they regard as the expensive administrative inconvenience of having to deal with the more than 40 probation trusts that will come into existence under this Bill, or what are now known as probation boards. I can understand that. If I ran an organisation such as Turning Point or one of the other grant farmers—and I use the expression in a descriptive rather than pejorative way—that operate in the field, I would find it altogether more convenient to deal with the smallest possible number of contracting partners.
	I received a fairly apoplectic letter from Mr. Bubb during the Bill's Report stage in this House, and a rather less apoplectic one the other day. The latter was addressed to "Dear Edward", and it was couched in identical terms to letters that were sent to every other Member of Parliament. I suspect that each letter addressed its recipient by his or her first name, but Mr. Bubb is employed to advance ACEVO's interests and I do not criticise him for that. However, I am employed by my constituents and the public as a whole to try to produce the best possible legislation, and to ensure that it best suits the purpose of improving the supervision of offenders and protecting victims. To be honest, the Minister's arguments contain nothing that supports the contention made by the Attorney-General in the other place that the Bill is designed to achieve those aims. The Government's objective in seeking to overturn the amendments is fairly straightforward: they want to concentrate the power of contracting into a few, centrally located hands.
	I debated these matters at a meeting of the Local Government Association not long ago with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), when he was Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Justice. He said, quite candidly, that the line of responsibility of a regional offender manager would not be to the local community, or to the local probation board or trust. Instead, the chain of command would go up the line and back to Whitehall: it used to be to Peel house and the Home Secretary, although it is now to Selbourne house and the Secretary of State for Justice. Unless the Government understand why there is so much cross-party objection to the model, the argument will go on for quite some time. It may or may not be a dialogue of the deaf.
	The Minister must understand that there is a need for, and a genuine purpose in having, commissioning at a local level. For goodness' sake, most crime is committed locally. Yes, I fully understand that there is a problem with international, cross-border and cross-regional crime. However, most of the work that is done in the Crown courts—I declare an interest as a Crown court recorder who occasionally has to read probation officers' pre-sentencing reports and has to seek the advice of such people when considering sentences—and certainly most of the work that is done in the magistrates courts is locally derived.
	It therefore seems to us that the best response to local crime, in terms of community sentences and what is required in the supervision of offenders—both offenders on community sentences and those who have been released from custody—is one that is derived locally. The local judiciary, local councillors, the local magistracy, local probation officers and staff, and all the other interlinking agencies, such as social services, education authorities and others—all of whom have a common interest in reducing offending in the local area and supervising offenders in the most effective way—are the best reservoir of information and knowledge about how to organise things. No matter how good the motives of the Secretary of State or the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service and her regional offender managers, that is putting the cart before the horse. I urge the Government to think carefully about how they wish to take this matter forward.
	If one reads the letter sent by the Secretary of State for Justice to me and no doubt others in the House, one can see evidence of the constant desire to pull things back into Whitehall and to control. I am sure that the Minister will have cast an eye over the letter before it was sent out from his Ministry. The Secretary of State writes:
	"The aim of the Bill is to improve the delivery of probation services so as to reduce re-offending and better protect the public."
	That is not controversial. The letter continues:
	"To achieve this, the Bill removes the exclusive existing role for local probation boards, and establishes probation trusts as the public sector providers with whom the Secretary of State may contract. Regional Offender Managers...acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will commission services."
	So even in the third paragraph of the letter, we can see the direction of travel.
	The letter continues:
	"Commissioning will be an activity taking place at national, regional and local levels. Instead of the current situation, where 42 probation boards are managed directly from the centre, local lead providers will work under contract to ROMs for the delivery of services in a probation area."
	So we are going to have members of ACEVO and the CBI coming to deals with the ROM about how best to carve up the national cake. The matter will be dealt with at a regional or national level and any crumbs that fall off the edge of the regional or national table and which ACEVO or the CBI do not want will be allowed to be picked up by the smaller fry, who will be permitted to have their share.
	The letter goes on:
	"The lead provider will concentrate on the delivery of offender management, while sub-contracting much of their interventions work to other providers based on what is most effective, and who is best placed to deliver, in their local community."
	I pause there to comment that the person who is going to decide who is best placed to deliver is not somebody who is based locally, but the Secretary of State, via his subordinates. He will look from on high with his telescope at the worker bees getting on with such work as he condescends to give them, whereas I would rather the worker bees contracted directly locally, taking into account what is relevant and works in particular constituencies.
	The letter continues:
	"Where interventions can be delivered more effectively across a region, ROMs will contract directly with providers, but this will be so as to complement, not replace, the local arrangements."
	Hon. Members can believe that if they will. Later on in the letter, the Secretary of State mentions accountability and local links, and says that he wants
	"to use the powers in the Bill to devolve power to the local level. In particular, we will strengthen the existing local and regional arrangements for reducing re-offending across a range of partner organisations."
	Well, guess where those organisations will come from. The letter continues:
	"We have demonstrated this on the face of the Bill by amending it to ensure that the duties to agree, and have regard to, Local Area Agreements transfer from the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, along with the commensurate duties to co-operate with the relevant local authority overview and scrutiny committees. The boards of probation trusts are now required to include a local authority councillor"—
	this is an interesting point—
	"where practicable."
	Guess who will decide when it is practicable for a local authority representative to become involved: it will be the regional offender managers, the chief executive officer of the National Offender Management Service, the Secretary of State, or even the Minister. We can see that the whole philosophy behind the Secretary of State's argument is to pretend to give with one hand, but actually to control and to retain with both hands, so I look on what the Government propose with the greatest scepticism.
	Owing to time constraints, I will not argue in support of the points that Members in the other place made in favour of their amendments, which I seek to retain in the Bill. Those of us who are interested in the subject will have read with care the arguments of my noble Friend Baroness Anelay, the noble Lord Ramsbotham, and Liberal Democrat, Labour and Cross-Bench Members in the other place in support of the arrangements that I wish to see retained in the Bill. The Minister will have studied them, but clearly he was not persuaded by them. However, I urge hon. Members to be persuaded by them, first, because those arrangements are right; secondly, because they will work better; and, thirdly, because, ironically, I suspect that they fit better with the ideas and philosophies of the Labour party. They would enable us to do better what the Attorney-General asked us to do: to improve the supervision of offenders, and better to protect victims. With those words, I urge the House to sustain the amendments introduced in the other place, which come under the heading of commissioning by probation boards and probation trusts.

Neil Gerrard: I want to speak to Lords amendment No. 6, on the key issue of who does the commissioning, and at what level commissioning takes place. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have been concerned to ensure that we do not destroy the good work done by the probation service and the probation boards. The key probation tasks should still be carried out locally, and should be determined at that level through local partnerships. In the early part of our debates on the Bill, much of the focus was on the issue of contestability and where that was taking us. Some of my colleagues on the Labour Benches and I were extremely concerned that there appeared to be an agenda of privatisation which was driving the Bill.
	In addition, there is the idea of allowing much more commissioning that involves the voluntary sector. I want to make it clear—I have had to make it clear several times—that I do not oppose the involvement of the voluntary sector in probation work, where appropriate, but when people pray in aid bodies such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and the CBI we have to take it with a pinch of salt. The issue is not just one of convenience, which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) talked about; a not-for-profit organisation is not above empire building, and I am sure that we have all seen plenty of examples of that. Organisations do not approach the issue as outsiders with a neutral, objective point of view. They have considerable vested interests in what happens—a financial interest if it is a private company, or empire building in the case of a voluntary organisation.
	I accept that, as the Minister said, some commissioning is best done at national or regional level. I see examples where that is clearly the case, such as hostel provision, which is performed at a national level now. If the hostel is to accommodate sex offenders, it should not be in the locality where the sex offenders come from and where they may bump into their victims in the street. I can see other examples where economies of scale suggest commissioning at national or regional level. Electronic tagging is an obvious case where that makes sense, as only one or two companies provide the service. We do not want 40 probation areas to end up with 40 different contracts.
	I entirely understand the Minister's argument. I accept what has been said in the past few days. In the letter that he knows was sent by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to me and other hon. Members, there has been a significant shift in the Government's approach. The Secretary of State writes that he sees commissioning at national level of some very specialist low volume, high cost services—hostels would be an example—and that the regional commissioners will take strategic overviews for their areas but will work in partnership with local authorities, the National Treatment Agency, learning and skills councils and so on.
	The most important thing that the Secretary of State said was about local provision. The lead provider, which in general will be the probation board or trust, certainly to start with, will act as both provider and commissioner and will concentrate on delivering the core offender management work. An equally important assurance that he gave in the letter, which my right hon. Friend the Minister repeated, was that provided its performance meets requirements, the lead provider in a probation area will be the probation trust. The lead provider will engage with other partners in the local strategic partnership to agree and implement local area agreements.

Edward Garnier: But is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that that arrangement is not on the face of the Bill?

Neil Gerrard: I am coming to that. The letter is significant. It represents real movement from the Government's position some time ago. On Third Reading the then Home Secretary said of local area agreements and partnerships:
	"At the moment, one of those partners is the present probation board, which is both a commissioner and a provider. That will change and the commissioner element of that will go to the regional commissioner."—[ Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1023.]
	Clearly, on Third Reading it was intended that the local probation trust would not be a commissioner. I accept that there has been a significant shift, and that the present Secretary of State says that the local probation trust will be both provider and commissioner and will take the lead in local commissioning.
	My concern, which others raised earlier, is that that is not on the face of the Bill. Will the Minister think again? The Bill, with amendments, will obviously go back to the other place. Will he consider putting on the face of the Bill what has been said—that the lead provider and commissioner will be the local probation trust, and that the Secretary of State will, rightly, have the power to step in when what is done locally is not satisfactory? Poor quality service should not be allowed to continue, so the power for the Secretary of State to step in is needed. If that was in the Bill, someone could, if necessary, challenge that intervention, perhaps by judicial review.
	I very much welcome the Secretary of State's letter, because it gets us, if not to where we want to be—there are still elements of the Bill that cause me considerable concern—then much closer to where we want to be than where we were, certainly on Second Reading. I am still worried about the bureaucracy that will be involved in the regional structures. I am still not clear about who makes the decisions on commissioning. The Bill originally said that it would be the Secretary of State, the amendment suggests probation trusts, and Ministers are saying that we will have to have both. In fact, there are three possibilities—the Secretary of State, the regional offender manager, or the local trust working at different levels, with the focus on the local, which is where it should be. The question is who decides what is commissioned at the regional level and at the local level. I want the emphasis to be with the local—with the probation trust—not with the regional offender manager.

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend is talking about one of my key concerns. What we have heard from the Minister today has taken us a lot further forward. I think that the Government have now accepted that some of the very good local, finely tuned work, which often deals with only small groups of people but is none the less an essential part of effective probation and offender management, is secure and will continue. Does he agree that that is an extremely important advance?

Neil Gerrard: That is right. It very much fits in with what was being said last week in the annual report from the chief inspector of probation services, who said that incremental improvements had been made and that we need to continue that process instead of throwing the whole structure up in the air. What Ministers have said in the last day or so is moving in the right direction. The current situation is not perfect, but there has been an important shift in what is being said, which is very different from what was said on Third Reading. I wish that we had been in the position of having this productive discussion around the time of Report and Third Reading, when we could have been much nearer to getting to where we should be.
	Given what the Minister said, I am not going to oppose what the Government are doing, although that does not mean to say that I will necessarily vote for it. I hope that if this is discussed again in the other place we will get into the Bill exactly the sort of things that Ministers have been saying and that the Secretary of State said to me in his letter.

Jeremy Browne: I do not intend to detain the House at great length, but I want to say a few words, given that we are having the crucial part of our discussion right at the beginning.
	Nobody can doubt the important role played by probation services. There is a churning of people who regularly commit crimes against our constituents, and breaking that cycle is an absolutely crucial public policy objective of the Government and is in the interests of everybody in this country. I ought to say straight away that my party has no innate hostility to diversity of provision—far from it. The voluntary sector is currently involved in providing probationary services in some circumstances, but our objection to the Bill and the Government's intentions is that we do not wish to see legislation starting from a top-down, prescriptive assumption that is driven by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be responsible for commissioning services either directly or through his agents—the extraordinarily named regional offender managers. That gives us a sense of the tone and style of this arrangement; people with such overbearing and rather grand titles will impose their blueprint on those who serve at a more local level, which gets to the crux of our frustrations and our problem with the Government's position.
	As we are in the business of citing organisations in our support, the Probation Boards Association emphasised recently that crime is a local phenomenon with local causes and solutions. That is very much my experience. I represent a sizeable county town in the largely rural county of Somerset, and doubtless it has problems that are familiar to different communities throughout the country, but specific problems may not be replicated in quite the same way in, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who represents a part of our capital city.
	We need probation services that are finely attuned to the individual needs and requirements of each community, and an approach driven from the top down by the Secretary of State with his regional enforcers seems unlikely to achieve that desired objective. We are looking, in microcosm, at the wider problem with the Government's attitude to public services. Perhaps it is a hangover from the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair—

David Anderson: Who?

Jeremy Browne: It is an opportunity to say his name on the Floor of the House.
	Perhaps the measure is a legacy of Tony Blair's approach to public service reform, where the language was modernising and high on rhetoric, but in practice we often dealt with a controlled and restrictive blueprint.

Edward Garnier: The reality of the previous Prime Minister's Government was reflected by the fact that in the winter estimates, it became apparent that the headquarters of the National Offender Management Service was to receive £60 million to £80 million more than the entire front line of the probation service. We can see what the Government are in the business of doing. They are pulling not just power into the centre, but money with it.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for that intervention because it further reinforces my point. In essence, the critique is this: the Government are persuaded intellectually of the need to improve public services through the devolution of power and authority, to allow a thousand flowers to bloom and to empower local communities, but they are instinctively incapable of turning such rhetoric into practice. They talk the language of freedom, but they practise the actions of control. That is our objection to the Government's proposals, and for that reason I shall not back down, as some Labour MPs have said that they are inclined to. My party will vote to frustrate the Government's objective.

Patrick Hall: On Report and Third Reading—perhaps a little late in the day—the Government began to listen, thanks to the personal interest that the then Home Secretary took in the matters that we are considering. Significant movement occurred, albeit somewhat late in the day, on contestability.
	The Government made a commitment to exclude the core probation services for three years from contestability, which covers report writing, supervision of serious offenders and breached proceedings. We were promised that best value would be adopted as the test of whether a contested service would be successful. The dogmatic adherence to a target budget percentage method of allocating money—that is, outsourcing 5, 10 or 20 per cent.—was abandoned. We were also promised that any changes to those matters in three or more years would be based on evidence of what was happening on the ground. The then Home Secretary undertook to ensure that the Government would establish a mechanism to learn what was happening on the ground so that future decisions would be based on evidence.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the other place has made welcome movement, some of which the Government will accept. Improvements have therefore been made there. Today the Minister put it on record that in practice, commissioning probation services will take place not only from a centrally driven, Secretary of State position or nationally, but regionally—as knew earlier—and, most significantly, locally. That means probation boards and trusts. That tackles a concern that has been expressed not only by hon. Members but by people who work in the probation services throughout the country—certainly in Bedfordshire, where I have listened to people.
	It is vital to keep as much commissioning as is appropriate local. That is especially important in the context of a revived local area agreement mechanism, which the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill introduces. Under earlier proposals in the Bill that we are considering, the chief probation officer would have been the only statutory partner in the local area agreement who was unable to agree to the delivery of services that the local area agreement partners wanted. Under those proposals, the chief probation officer was not in command of a budget. However, now that my colleagues in the Government have made an important clarification, the chief probation officer can say that the probation trust or board will contribute—including resources, when necessary—to the local area agreement. That is a significant improvement.
	Local commissioning is important because it is based on local knowledge. Local people should make those judgments and determinations, not a regional manager or the Secretary of State.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend mentioned resources as well as the power to commission. We must have the financial resources. It is clear from a recent report from the chief inspector of probation that resources are not keeping pace with demand. Does my hon. Friend believe that that needs to be sorted out before we move forward?

Patrick Hall: That would be helpful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, we would like more of an incremental approach to the way in which those matters evolve. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) would fit in with that.
	Local knowledge is important. When people know each other and have built up professional relationships of trust over several years, they can fine-tune the services that they agree to provide, often for one or two individuals. That may not appear significant on a national scale, but it makes a difference to our constituents. As we all know, much of the crime that takes place in this country is perpetrated by a handful of individuals, who are known to the authorities. It is a handful of people who need particular attention. We therefore have to work with those in a local area who deal with them. That is an important point, which the Government have rightly agreed to secure.
	Securing the continuation of that will make all the difference to improving offender management. However, I have taken some time and trouble to listen to people working in the probation service in Bedfordshire on the issue, and I have not met anyone who is trying to defend something without any change, or who does not concede that improvements are needed. Indeed, many are committed to continuing to make improvements. However, they saw that that process would be blocked if commissioning at a local level were no longer to take place, because neither the Secretary of State nor the regional offender manager is in a position to have that local knowledge. I therefore sincerely welcome the words, carefully used, of my right hon. Friend the Minister in opening this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said that he would certainly not vote against the Government's position, but I urge him to vote for it, because we have seen a significant improvement, which is about the best we are going to get. The alternative position, put forward in the Lords—mainly by the Conservatives, but it was perhaps supported by some others—would be to exclude the possibility of regional and national commissioning. That is a dogmatic approach. Not everything needed to improve offender management can be delivered only at local level, even if, in my view, much or most of it can. We need to make the best use of the national expertise, often specialist, which is available by definition on a national and possibly regional basis.

John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it would be so much better, with the talent that is available, if all the marvellous suggestions that the Government have made could be included in the Bill? Then everyone would be clear. If those suggestions are not included, is there not a danger that the Secretary of State will ultimately be responsible for all commissioning under the Bill, and that a future Secretary of State for Justice might not be nearly as well intentioned and reasonable as the current holder of that position?

Patrick Hall: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has just said, especially as he is currently in such close proximity to the Secretary of State. I asked earlier about including some of those matters in the Bill, and in particular the structure of national, regional and local commissioning. We had an answer, on which I might like to see some movement, but what is important, and what my hon. Friend should not forget, is that what a Secretary of State or a Minister says on the record in this House is very significant indeed.

Edward Garnier: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. Indeed, nowadays the courts can read what a Minister says, in doing their best to construe an Act of Parliament. He will remember, I hope, that about an hour and a half or so ago we were talking about the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. The issue was whether the Government should include in that Bill the period in which the Prison Service and the police should be brought within the corporate manslaughter regime. The Government seemed to be hugely reluctant to do that. Unless such matters are in that Bill, there will always be a good reason not to do something. I earnestly urge the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest of diffidence, to apply his mind to his experience of what this Government—and indeed all Governments—do unless they are required to do something by the law of the land.

Patrick Hall: I am interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but in practice, how offender management will be delivered at the local level is so detailed and often so complex that it will be practically impossible for the Secretary of State to take over all those functions. In practice, we shall see the development of commissioning at national, regional and local levels, with the bulk of it at a local level. Yes, in theory, and perhaps in practice, I would prefer to see some words in the Bill to underpin that. However, what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said amounts to the same thing. He could not have stood before the House and made those comments unless the Government were completely committed to that approach. Frankly, I do not see any Government being able to deliver offender management and a good probation service unless much of the work is carried out at a local level. We are dealing with the practical realities of how legislation is dealt with in both Houses of Parliament.
	For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friends who are considering abstaining to demonstrate their support for how the Government have listened and moved on these issues. It is also important to send a signal to the other place by supporting the Government's position this afternoon.

David Hanson: I thank my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members, for the constructive tone of this afternoon's debate. First, I would like to say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) that the debate goes to the heart of how we see the new probation service progressing. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough believes that it will concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, but I believe that it will share power between the Secretary of State, regional offender managers and local probation trusts. I can give him the assurance, which I hope will help him to join us in the Lobby this evening, that it will be for the lead provider to decide—based on local knowledge at the local level—what commissioning is necessary and what form it will take.
	Certainly, the Secretary of State will need to commission some things and regional offender managers will need to commission other things at regional level. I referred in my opening remarks to the efficient scale of services at regional and national levels. As I say, certain things will need to be commissioned at those levels, but other areas of work could be undertaken at the local level. It is important to get the balance right, but it is certainly our intention that the local lead provider should undertake the relevant commissioning. That is the difference between the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and myself, and between the hon. Member for Taunton and myself, but I hope that we will not need to divide the House on that basis.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Bedford (Patrick Hall) made a number of important points. I am very pleased that they have accepted the spirit of what I said in my opening remarks. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow says about building my remarks and their context properly into the Bill. I will look further into the possibility of doing that, but I need to reflect in greater detail. I have tried to assure my hon. Friend that the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself—what we have said both publicly and privately, in writing to my hon. Friend—provides the opportunity for us to reflect seriously about doing that. I will definitely look further into it.

Edward Garnier: How long is this period of reflection likely to be?

David Hanson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that if, as I expect, the House rejects the Lords amendments today, they will go back to another place. Another place will have to reconsider them shortly. I am not a business manager, but I am sure that that will be done shortly. I will have further discussions with my right hon. Friend and parliamentary counsel about these serious matters. We need to get this right; it is not a matter of simply expressing an aspiration. Parliamentary counsel put legislative intention into effect. My right hon. Friend and I will give further consideration to the possibility of looking further into these matters and putting them on the face of the Bill.
	I hope that after that assurance, my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow and for Bedford will be able to help the Government by supporting us in the Lobby and rejecting the amendments. As I said in my opening remarks, whether the amendments come from the Conservatives or have cross-party support, they will damage the principles of the Bill. Those principles are to improve the level of probation services, to make a difference on the ground, to prevent reoffending and to ensure that we build a better society by helping people who have been offenders. We need not just to help probation boards or trusts in the future, but to involve the voluntary sector in providing effective services.
	I very much appreciate the tone of the debate, and I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government, in view of what I have said about the possibility of putting such matters into the Bill.

Question put, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 169.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a deferred Division on the Question relating to political parties. The Ayes were 295, the Noes were 141, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Offender Management Bill

Clause 12
	 — 
	Power to repeal section 4

Lords amendment: No. 22.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 23 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendment No. 38 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

David Hanson: The Lords amendments apply two novel parliamentary processes to two different aspects of the Bill. First, Lords amendment No. 22 proposes that the so-called super-affirmative procedure be applied to the power in clause 12 to repeal the restriction on work involving the courts in clause 4. Many hon. Members expressed concerns at an earlier stage about the pace of change in the Bill. We listened carefully to those concerns and have done two things in response. First, we gave a clear commitment that core offender management work—the management and supervision of individual cases—will be commissioned only from the public sector for three years, or until 2010. Secondly, we amended the Bill to ensure that the work that probation services do in relation to courts can be commissioned only from the public sector until both Houses of Parliament agree that the restriction may be lifted. The Government agree that the power to lift the restriction should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
	As hon. Members will know, the Lords have taken a different view, and have subsequently amended the Bill to apply the super-affirmative procedure to the matter. Their amendment seeks to impose a delay on the procedure by specifying that a draft order must be laid for at least 60 days before both Houses may debate it. It seeks to impose requirements on both Houses by obliging them to approve a report that sets out what will be in the draft order. Both Houses would then be required to approve the proposals in the same Session, as set out in the order. I accept that the Lords have taken a view on the matter, but such a novel procedure is completely disproportionate to the change proposed by the Bill.
	The affirmative procedure is well known by hon. Members. It is tried and tested, and I believe that it provides the appropriate level of scrutiny for the power that we have introduced. The reasons that the amendment requires the Government to give would have to be given in any case, even with the normal affirmative procedure. We have to make our case, and under the affirmative procedure we have to back it up with evidence to secure the support of Parliament. The affirmative procedure offers the Commons a clear, operational opportunity to give a view on those issues. The super-affirmative procedure is disproportionate, so I urge the House to reject the amendment.
	Secondly, Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 38, too, seek to apply what I can only term "novel procedures" to the implementation of part 1 as a whole. Under those amendments, the Government would be required to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing a review of the proposals set out by my noble Friend Lord Carter in his report of December 2003, as well as the responses to—and a review of—the Government consultation document of October 2005, and a review of the proposals generally.
	Having examined the amendments in some detail, I am not entirely sure what they are intended to achieve. I am interpreting here, but I believe that their supporters in another place believe that the Government might have time to re-examine documents that are two years old, or nearly four years old, and that having done so and having completed a long and, in part, tortuous parliamentary process, they might not agree to implement the proposals after all. I do not consider that realistic. If we were to revisit those dated documents, we would merely see how far the policy had progressed and how many amendments had been made, thanks to consideration in another place and by my hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
	The policy before the House today is not the same as the policy set out in my noble Friend Lord Carter's report in December 2003. It is not the same as the policy in the response to the October 2005 consultation document, and it is not the same as the policy contained in proposals made as recently as earlier this year. I believe that, both in legislative terms and in our planning for implementation, we have listened to Parliament, listened to stakeholders, and made some significant changes. I therefore hope that the House will reject Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 38.
	The machinery of government changed on 9 May when the Ministry of Justice was formed. There may now be an opportunity for another place to conclude that its formation has made significant changes to the Government's commitment to the Bill. I have set out clearly today how the Government envisage the commissioning process. I believe that the process described in the Bill is one that we can support, given what was said earlier by my hon. Friends, who have now left the Chamber and gone for a well-earned cup of tea. We need to concentrate on the way forward, and to end delay and uncertainty. For those reasons and those reasons alone, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Edward Garnier: I support the Lords amendments. Although I listened carefully to the Minister's arguments on behalf of the Government, I think that they require rather more analysis than he was able to give.
	When the Minister came to my constituency to address the Leicestershire and Rutland probation service at Leicester race course, than which there is no finer place, he did not exactly run away with himself. He was not exactly carried away with enthusiasm for the project over which he now has control, namely the National Offender Management Service. In the course of his remarks, of which someone kindly sent me a note—

David Hanson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has spies.

Edward Garnier: I have a constituent.
	In the course of his remarks to the Leicestershire and Rutland probation service, the Minister admitted that the probation service in my county was one of the best. It is probably in the top four, and it may well be the best of all in terms of hitting the targets that the Government have set it. It is therefore highly likely to be one of the first to be required to divert much of its attention, time and money to changing from a board to a trust.

David Hanson: rose—

Edward Garnier: Does the Minister wish to praise the probation service even further?

David Hanson: Not only to praise it, but to say that the chairman and chief executive look forward very much to the opportunity to apply for trust status.

Edward Garnier: Is it not interesting that they say such things to people they talk to? I dare say that if I were employed by the Secretary of State for Justice, I should find it convenient to look forward to all his plans, not least because I might hope they would include me.
	But let me return to Leicester race course, where there is a very fine straight mile. The Minister rightly praised the Leicestershire and Rutland probation service and also said that the creation of NOMS—that bureaucratic blancmange placed between the Secretary of State and the Prison Service and the probation service—had not quite turned out as he wished. I paraphrase what was said, of course, and I do not have to be careful about what I say as I am not a NOMS employee.
	It is fair to say that most dispassionate observers of the creation of NOMS will have wondered why so much money was spent and what it was designed to achieve, and also why it was necessary to draw people from the Prison Service, the probation service and other limbs of the Home Office and other Departments and to push them all into the NOMS headquarters. For instance, why were all the regional offender managers put into post? I believe that there are now about 2,000 new civil servants working for NOMS. What benefits have accrued both to the public in terms of reducing reoffending and enhancing public protection and to the Prison Service and probation service? I acknowledge that these are still early days as we are only in the third financial year of NOMS, but it is difficult to discern any benefit that the public or public services have gained from the change. Its creation did not require legislation, but it is sometimes referred to in legislation, and the Minister found it difficult to praise it wholeheartedly when he visited my constituency.
	I have provided some background, and I now wish to discuss how we got to where we are. This is not the first Offender Management Bill. Another one was introduced before the 2005 general election, which the election prevented from being enacted. The pre-2005 Bill came out of a report referred to in amendment No. 23, which was published on 11 December 2003: "Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach". That led not only to the creation of the pre-2005 Bill, but to the collation of responses to the consultation document "Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-Offending", which anteceded the 2007 Bill.
	We and the House of Lords suggest that those two reports and the review of the responses to the second report should at least be publicly understood, and discussed and digested by the Government, before the Bill is enacted. We do not seek to kill off the Bill; if we had wanted to do that we would have attempted to do so on Second Reading, when we gave it conditional support—although our hopes were disappointed by the time we reached Third Reading. We want to produce the best Bill in order to do what the Attorney-General asked us to do: to reduce reoffending and increase public protection.
	On 6 January 2004, the Government published "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives" in response to Lord Carter's report "Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach". It proposed to merge the prison and probation services and to open up work with offenders to both internal and external markets. It also set up NOMS, with its national and regional structures.
	Interestingly enough, on 20 July 2004 the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who is one of the many Labour Members of Parliament who have become Ministers in the past 10 years —[ Interruption. ] He swapped jobs with the Minister—what a treat for everybody. Anyway, on 20 July the hon. Gentleman, when he was Under-Secretary with responsibility for correctional services, announced that the Government had decided that their original proposal for the immediate establishment of NOMS regional boards and the separation of probation staff into offender management and interventions needed more time. He said he had decided that the option of moving immediately to create new regional boards was unlikely to deliver better management of offenders and better services—his main two objectives. He also said that he wanted to concentrate on delivering end-to-end offender management and that he would introduce greater competition, because he had concluded that those objectives could best be achieved through 42 probation boards. How times have changed.
	In 2005, the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill was introduced in the other place, which would have abolished the probation service and introduced a fragmented market. By this time, the notion of merging prisons and probation appears to have been forgotten. However, the Bill did not proceed, partly because of an unexpected and strong opposition to its proposals in the other place and because of the intervention of the 2005 general election.
	Ever wishing to consult, the Government issued yet a further consultation paper, as mentioned in amendment No. 23. It was called "Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-Offending" and it was published in October 2005. That led to much discussion, and some response from those interested in the subject. By the end of the consultation period, on 20 December 2005, we had learned that of the 748 people and organisations that had responded, only 10 were in favour of the Government's proposals. Despite that overwhelming rejection of the restructuring ideas, the Government have pressed ahead with the Bill, which had its Second Reading just before Christmas 2006.
	The Government's view at that stage—it changes from time to time as they are a flexible collection of people—was that the changes were required because too many offences were being committed, reoffending rates were far too high, the performance of the probation service was poor, and matters needed a good shake up—never mind the fact that it would be the third shake up since 2000. If one keeps shaking things, they tend to break, but here we are, watching the Government shake it up a bit more.
	Our complaint, which we share with the other place, is that the Government's decision to introduce the Bill in its present form is not evidence-based. It ignores the responses to the consultation exercise; it promotes consequences that are foreseeable, but which do not appear to have been foreseen by the Government; it transfers commissioning powers away from local areas and into the hands of NOMS and therefore into the control of the Secretary of State, as mentioned in the debate we had earlier today; it reduces ministerial accountability; it undermines much of the probation service's ability to do its work; it may compromise training standards, although we may have a chance to discuss that point later this evening; and it may undermine the concept of a probation profession, a point that was made by Labour Members earlier.
	All those arguments are worth restating, because the Government are not sure of what they are about. This is the third restructuring of the probation service since 2000, but they have not prepared an adequate business case to justify their proposals, nor produced any evidence that the restructuring will reduce offending or increase public protection.
	Moreover, the Opposition have managed to discover that the proposals will be hugely expensive. I mentioned, in a recent intervention on the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), that NOMS has a budget that is about £60 million or £80 million bigger than that granted to the front line of the probation service. The Government are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on chairs, desks and filing cabinets for the NOMS headquarters, and on moving no doubt highly qualified officials from the prison and probation services and the Home Office to an office in Whitehall where they wonder what they are supposed to do. We believe that that money would be better spent on probation officers, and on supervisory provision through the private and charitable sectors.
	The Government might need the delay and time for consideration that the amendments would provide to ensure that the legislation produced is not muddled. I urge the House, or at least, as much of it that is here—

Julian Lewis: We are right behind you.

Edward Garnier: I thought so: all young, brave officers say, "Charge, men, I'm right behind you!" I hope that all hon. Members will take this opportunity to think carefully about what they are doing.
	Amendment No. 22 would make the Government and the Secretary of State more accountable. The Bill gives the Secretary of State huge powers to amend the law by secondary legislation. The question of whether the Secretary of State should use the affirmative or the negative procedure to change the law has been debated, and the Minister of State said in a letter of 17 July that the Government accept that some parliamentary scrutiny "would be appropriate". That is very nice of him, but he proposes that it should take the form of the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. I had hoped for rather more than that.
	If the Bill is to make progress, the Government should accept the procedure set out in amendment No. 22, which proposes what is known colloquially as the super-affirmative procedure. The proposed system is logical and clear, and would lead to far greater parliamentary scrutiny, with the result that the Secretary of State would be rendered more accountable to both Houses of Parliament. No democrat who is a member of the Executive should complain about that.
	We face one constitutional problem that some people—and, from time to time, I am one of them—say is a benefit. It is that the Executive not only sit in Parliament, but on it as well. The amendment goes some way towards redressing the balance. If we can get the Government to ensure that their measures are "superly" affirmed, the result may be that the Executive are required to look Parliament more directly in the face.
	Amendment No. 38 deals with the date of implementation. It may not be known by many in the Chamber that the implementation provision is to be found on the last page of the main body of the Bill, in clause 38. The provision permits the Secretary of State to designate an appointed day for the Bill to come into force. Amendment No. 38 would mean that the appointed day would be provisional on the factors referred to in subsections (1A) and (1B) in the amendment. Those seem entirely sensible and logical matters to take into account.  [ Interruption. ] I am informed that the Government are so concerned about the super-affirmative procedure that they would like to speak at some length on the subject. I would be delighted if the right hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton, West (Mr. McAvoy), who is concerned about my well-being, could have that opportunity, but sadly he is part of the silent service, so we have merely to stand here and admire him in every possible way. Unfortunately, the argument that he has put to me politely on paper does not move me at all and, in due course, I will ask for the opinion of the House on the procedural matters in this group of amendments.

Jeremy Browne: It is fair to say that this group of amendments does not go as directly to the heart of the Bill as the previous group. None the less, they are significant and worthy of brief comment. I rise to highlight two objectives to which I hope we in this House attach importance.
	First—everybody will obviously share this objective—we wish to have legislation that reduces the reoffending rate and that is able to deal effectively with the problems that affect all our constituents. To that end, it is important that Ministers properly digest all the relevant reports, that we take stock of informed contributions to the debate, and that we try to make the Government and all their agencies work as effectively as possible to try to deal with this significant problem. Apart from the desire to avoid inconvenience, I cannot see why Ministers would deeply object to trying to allow and accommodate serious attempts to improve efforts to reduce reoffending rates.
	The second, related, objective of this place is to try to make sure that the legislation that we pass is effective and meets its own objectives. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) touched on the subject a moment ago. We have had several consultation papers on the subject and a number of attempts to restructure probation services. In fact, we have had so many changes that, when the Bill had its Second Reading in this House in December, it was sponsored by a completely different Department from the Department that now seeks to conclude the deliberations. We can say with some confidence that this is not a settled area of Government policy.
	Given that that is the case, it seems reasonable that proper reflection should take place to make sure that the legislation is effective, that reoffending rates are tackled in the best way possible, and that the Secretary of State himself is held fully accountable. For all those reasons, my party is minded to reject the Government's position on this group of amendments and to support the hon. and learned Gentleman when he seeks to test the opinion of the House.

David Hanson: With the leave of the House, I shall comment on the assertions made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on the performance of the National Offender Management Service. He mentioned comments that I made when I visited Leicester race course in his constituency. On that occasion, NOMS gave me a warm welcome, and in the years in which the service has been operational, there has been significant improvement to performance. Let me give him a couple of figures to ponder while he reflects on the progress of the Bill.
	In 2005-06, the target was for 40,000 offenders to take part in the basic skills programme, and 44,972 offenders started the programme. The target for key work skills awards was 120,000 people, and 186,000 people achieved those awards. The target for enhanced community punishment unpaid work completion was 50,000, and over 51,000 individuals completed unpaid work. I am proud of the fact that the offender management service is delivering services, both in prison and in the community, and that it is achieving some of the targets that we have set, but we are not complacent, as was shown in our debate on the previous group of amendments. We want improvements, and we want to make sure that there are drivers to help underperforming probation services to improve.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) seemed to suggest that the Government had been in a mad rush to get the legislation through the House, but that "mad rush" goes back to my noble Friend Lord Carter's report in 2003, some four years ago. The amendments before us ask us to reconsider what Lord Carter said in 2003, and the issues considered in the consultation in 2005. Essentially, it asks us to revisit the Bill's progress through this place and the other place over that period, and to revisit our debates to date, just in case the Government decide that what they have sought to do so far is wrong and not applicable.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be aware that the deadline for expressing interest in forming part of the initial wave of probation trusts has passed. Twenty-two of the 35 probation boards eligible—nearly two thirds of them—expressed an interest in becoming probation trusts in the first wave. The probation boards that have expressed an interest in becoming trusts, including in his area of Leicestershire, would not welcome a further delay to the consideration of that policy objective. They have expressed an interest, and they want to consider going on to the next stage, and we are now progressing with that stage in depth. We have had discussions and there has been progress; the Government have not rushed the proposals. The Lords amendments seek to delay still further the impact of the legislation.

Edward Garnier: I agree that the gap between 2000 and 2007 cannot be described as a short period, but of course we are not talking about a continuum. There has been a number of reviews, and a number of proposals put forward, and we are now dealing with the third reorganisation of the probation service in that relatively short period. It is no good saying, "We've been thinking about the subject for some time, so the process can't be described as a rush." If we examine and analyse what has happened in those seven years, we can see that the thinking process behind the Government's proposals has been, shall we say, a little disorganised. That is the complaint, and that is why it is so important that there be a delay period that allows the Government time to see how the measures will work in practice, before they bring the Bill into full effect.

David Hanson: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I am not convinced that further delay to the process and further consideration would be valuable. My colleagues in NOMS and I will obviously take a keen interest in the roll-out of the waves of trust applications. We will take a keen interest in the development of NOMS at probation trust/board level, and we will monitor it carefully as a matter of course. I do not believe that the further delay proposed in the amendment would be of great assistance to the process, or that the super-affirmative procedure would add anything to parliamentary scrutiny that the affirmative procedure proposed in the Bill will not add. For those reasons, I regret that I must disappoint the hon. and learned Gentleman, much as I enjoyed visiting his constituency to discuss matters with his constituents. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 159.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	 Lords amendment: No. 11.

David Hanson: I beg to move Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must move the motion to disagree.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment. However, I also beg to move Government amendment (a)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering Lords amendment No. 11 and the motion to disagree thereto. With this, we may discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof. However, we do not move it at this stage.

David Hanson: I believe that I have fulfilled the requirements.
	Members of another place expressed genuine anxiety about the risk of conflicts of interest if one organisation proposed and provided outcomes for offenders. They feared that advice might be skewed towards the outcomes that the organisation provided. Another place amended the Bill to require individual providers of probation services and their officers to ensure that their advice to courts and the Parole Board did not give rise to any conflict of interest.
	I have carefully considered the points that were raised in another place together with concerns that were expressed here earlier. I now believe that it would be helpful to deal with the matter on the face of the Bill. I have a small quibble with the Lords amendment because it places a duty on individual providers and officers, whereas we believe that it would be appropriate to give the duty to the Secretary of State, who is better placed to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the conflict of interest does not arise.
	I am grateful for the assistance of the other place in making the improvement and I hope that Government amendment (a) will help. I believe that we have tackled the spirit of the other place's concerns. I commend amendment (a) to hon. Members.

Edward Garnier: The debate is less contentious that those that we have held so far. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the thrust of the arguments in the other place and those that were drawn to his predecessor's attention in Committee. As a Member of Parliament and having declared my interest as a recorder, I raised our concerns about the conflict of interest that might arise if a provider of a probation service had an interest in the recommendation that he or his organisation made to the sentencing court—be it the Crown court or a magistrates court. Clearly, some progress has been made, thanks to discussions in another place on conflict of interest.
	I should like the Minister to explain in greater detail the difference between Government amendment (a) and the Lords amendment. They are similar in intention but there are significant differences of detail. The Lords amendment states:
	"In carrying out their functions under this Part, and in particular in providing any assistance to the courts and to the Parole Board for England and Wales, providers of probation services and their officers shall ensure that such assistance does not give rise to any conflict of interest".
	Let us leave aside for the moment the argument about whether the Secretary of State or the provider of probation services is the appropriate person to fulfil the requirement. If I got into that, I would repeat the arguments about the top-down delivery of probation services and so on, and I do not want to do that. However, there is a difference between whoever keeps an eye on the risk of conflict "ensuring" that it does not occur and his—as is suggested in Government amendment (a)—having
	"regard to the need to take reasonable steps to avoid"
	conflict. That is a very long-winded way of saying, "we'll do our best." I prefer the Secretary of State to be placed under an obligation that he should ensure that there is, so far as practicable, no risk of a conflict. The issue might have to go back to the other place. If so, between now and then, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman consider the difference between "ensure" and
	"have regard to the need to take reasonable steps to avoid (so far as practicable)".
	If he can persuade himself that it would be better to insert "ensure" rather than the alternative, we would be completely ad idem, as opposed to just wishing to travel down the same path.
	The issue is not a matter of semantics; there is a real difference between the two proposals as drafted. I urge the Minister to do something about that if he can. The Government amendment in lieu refers to the necessity to
	"take reasonable steps to avoid (so far as practicable) the risk that...the provision, in pursuance of the arrangements, of assistance to a court or to the Parole Board".
	That is a welcome paragraph. The amendment then refers to the risk that
	"the carrying out, in pursuance of the arrangements, of any other activities, might be adversely affected by any potential conflict between the provider's obligations in relation to those activities and the financial interests of the provider."
	That broadly reflects the thrust of the second half of the Lords amendment, so my concern there is of no account. Simply because I am happy to accept, for present purposes, the Government amendment in lieu—I am not going to take this matter to a dispute—I urge the Minister to take into account some of the remarks that I have made on the wording, so that the obligation on the Secretary of State is that much firmer than it currently appears to be. If the Minister cannot offer me that help, could he please explain the Government's requirement that there should be that obvious difference, between "ensure" and the necessity to take reasonable steps?

Jeremy Browne: My contribution will be extremely brief, because I wish only to echo some of the sentiments that the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed. Lords amendment No. 11 was a Conservative amendment introduced in the other place, but it was supported by my party and as a consequence passed there, which is why we are considering it here this evening.
	We remain concerned about the potential for conflicts of interest. Although we welcome the progress that has been made, in terms of the Government seeking to accommodate and respond to those concerns, in an ideal world we should like them to move further. We would greatly welcome it if the Minister were minded to address himself to the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made about whether the wording of the Government amendment in lieu could be made tighter and more onerous in the burden that it imposes.

David Hanson: I shall try to respond to the points that have been made. I am grateful for the relatively warm welcome that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Taunton have given the Government amendment in lieu. I believe that we have moved and that we have listened to another place, but obviously there are still matters on which I should be happy to reflect, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought to the House's attention.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, in broad terms, whether it was more appropriate for the duty to rest with the Secretary of State rather than with the provider. We have taken the view that regional commissioners will have a strategic overview of all services that are being delivered in their region. That means that they will be better placed to assess and police potential conflicts of interest than the Secretary of State. However, I am again happy to reflect on what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and to listen to the points that have been made.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we had used the words "so far as practicable". Parliamentary counsel suggested that they were the most appropriate form of words to cover the issues raised in another place. I am happy to reflect on what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but that was the point that was put to us.

Edward Garnier: I do not want any more bites at the cherry than are necessary. I am not so much fussed about "so far as practicable", as with
	"the need to take reasonable steps to avoid"
	as compared with "ensure". That is the distinction that worries me.

David Hanson: I will reflect further on the hon. and learned Gentleman's points. We will certainly try to ensure that conflicts of interest do not cause problems.
	When the court requests a pre-sentence report, it will also provide an indication of the expected sentencing outcome. The report can then be focused accordingly. Secondly, the report must adhere to national standards, which has been made clear in the strengthened amendment. Thirdly, there is clear guidance about the type of structure appropriate for the report, based on the seriousness of the offence and appropriate response. I hope that that helps the hon. and learned Gentleman with his concerns, although, as I say, I am happy to reflect further.
	We have moved considerably in respect of the Lords amendments. I hope that the House will accept our proposals while I undertake to look further into the hon. and learned Gentleman's points.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	 Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.
	Clause 5
	Power to establish probation trusts
	 Lords amendment: No. 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 35 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 36.

David Hanson: I beg to move Government amendment (a), which amends Lords amendment No. 35 and relates to clause 5(1)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating Lords amendment No. 14. Together with it, we are debating Lords amendment No. 35, Government amendment (a) and Lords amendment No. 36. The principal subject of the debate, on which the Question will initially be put, is Lords amendment No. 14. The question is whether you agree or disagree with that.

David Hanson: My apologies for the confusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In due course, I shall move amendment (a). That would amend Lords amendment No. 35, which relates to clause 5(1). That enables the Secretary of State to establish, dissolve or alter the name or purposes of a probation trust by means of an order. An order establishing a probation trust under clause 5(1) will set out the names and purposes of the trust.
	We originally proposed that the order should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There is a precedent for this matter in respect of procedures applying to NHS trusts. As before, however, I have listened to the views expressed in the other place and I acknowledge the legitimate interest of Parliament in these matters. I accept that parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. However, given the number of trusts to be established and the routine nature of the process as we move from boards to trusts over the next three years, I feel that the order should be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. That will provide the necessary safeguards to prevent excessive demands on parliamentary time.
	There is one further strand to the amendment, relating to clause 5(3)(c), which gives the Secretary of State the power to extend probation purposes by regulation. In response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Lords accepted a Government amendment subjecting that power to an affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the Minister, as it is important for us to clarify the position? Is the Minister agreeing or disagreeing with Lords amendment No. 14? Would he like to express his intention?

David Hanson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to agree with amendment No. 14, so I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	In tabling amendment (a), which will amends Lords amendment No. 35, I have indicated that we are moving to accept the principle of parliamentary scrutiny, which the other place requested. Originally, we proposed that the orders should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have now decided that such scrutiny is appropriate, and I have indicated that the order should be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure.
	We have moved some way towards the other place's general wishes on such matters.

Edward Garnier: Before the Minister concludes his remarks, may I clarify his position, so that I can respond more or less intelligently to it? As I understand it, the Government now apparently accept Lords amendment No. 14, which would remove clause 5(6), but disagree with Lords amendment No. 35, which removes the word "under" and adds the words,
	"or regulations under—
	( ) section 5(1) or ( 3)(c),"
	The Government wish to replace "5(1) or (3)(c)" with "5(3)(c)". The effect of the Government's case is that the statutory instrument will be subject to the negative, as opposed to the affirmative, procedure. Will the Minister remind the House of which bit of his argument puts forward that case?

David Hanson: For the avoidance of confusion—I would not want to confuse the House in the presence of such an eminent lawyer as the hon. and learned Gentleman—the Government seek to agree with Lords amendment No. 14, which is in relation to clause 5. In relation to clause 33, however, the Government seek to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I have tabled Government amendment (a), which would provide for the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. I have moved some way towards the position of the other place.
	With that clarification, and with my apologies to the House for the confusion at the beginning of the debate, I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman will, on reflection, see that the Government are trying to support the objective of the other place. We are simply changing from the affirmative to the negative procedure, because, given that there are 40-plus trusts, it would cause some difficulty were the affirmative procedure used each time the matter came before the House.

Edward Garnier: I think that I now understand what the Government are seeking to achieve. I am pleased that they are prepared to accept Lords amendment No. 14. I shall have a few things to say about Government amendment (a).
	First, may I establish what we are talking about? We are discussing a power given to the Secretary of State to establish probation trusts, the successor bodies to probation boards, which have been happily doing their work over the last few years following the Government's changes to the probation system in 2000.
	Clause 5 states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order...establish a probation trust...alter the name or purposes of a probation trust...dissolve a probation trust."
	The Secretary of State can require the probation trust to do all sorts of things, which are set out in the clause, in line with the purposes that he will decide for it. Interestingly enough, clause 5(3) states:
	"The purposes of a probation trust may include all or any of the following...the making or performance by the trust of contracts with another probation trust or any other person which provide for the carrying out by the trust of activities which contribute to the achievement of any purpose mentioned in section 2(1)...the making or performance by the trust of contracts with the Secretary of State for the carrying out by the trust of activities anywhere in the world"—
	well, I have heard of ambition, but that seems to take it to an extraterritorial dimension—
	"which...are to be carried out in connection with persons who are or have been subject to proceedings in service courts...correspond to activities which, if carried out in connection with persons charged with or convicted of offences, would contribute to the achievement of any purpose mentioned in section 2(1)...any other purpose specified for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	So the Secretary of State wants us to give him a collection of powers, which he can then mess around with through secondary legislation.
	Clause 33, in part 4, deals with orders and regulations, so it ties directly back to clause 5. Clause 33(1) states:
	"Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	Subsection (2) states:
	"An order or regulations under this Act my make...different provision for different purposes or different areas"—
	unspecified and unseen—
	"(b) incidental, supplemental, consequential, saving or transitional provision."
	So, under clause 33(2), the Secretary of State will be given huge powers to alter the legislation and the arrangements made between himself and probation providers. No doubt all this will be divvied up by the regional offender manager, as the lead provider or commissioner.
	As there will be lots of probation trusts and as the Secretary of State no doubt sees himself making lots of provisions,
	"incidental, supplemental, consequential, saving or transitional",
	he would find it rather more convenient for that to be done under the negative, as opposed to the affirmative, procedure. I am sorry, but I am not here for the convenience of the Government. Parliament is not here for the convenience of the Government. The Government are here for the convenience of the people and the people's representatives in the Chamber, elected by electors. If it is convenient for the Minister to require the Secretary of State to push all that through using the negative, as opposed to the affirmative, procedure, I am afraid that he does not carry me with him.
	I wish to apply such negative proceedings as I can to Government amendment (a), so I might ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow me to test the opinion of the House on Government amendment (a), even if I am delighted that the Government accede to Lords amendment No. 14. It is highly important that Parliament, even by the very tips of its fingers, maintain some purchase on the Executive; otherwise, the Executive will just run away with themselves by using secondary legislation to change laws, particularly laws that affect the criminal justice system. I really do think that from time to time, the Government ought to condescend to allow Parliament to hold them to account.

Peter Bone: Is not one of the problems with the Government that they are including more and more secondary legislation in Bills, and then using the negative procedure, which really reduces scrutiny by Parliament? That needs to be looked at again.

Edward Garnier: I wholeheartedly agree. The Government increasingly use administrative convenience to justify reducing the amount of parliamentary scrutiny given to the making of laws. These laws are not written in the air. They affect the people of this country, and there can be adverse consequences for those who breach them. We need to tread carefully when we are considering adjusting part of the criminal justice system.
	The Minister was not impressed by my arguments, or even by those of the other place, about the super-affirmative procedure for which I argued a moment ago. He has now gone right to the other end of the spectrum. Far from permitting the use of the super-affirmative or the affirmative system, he wants to whack this through using the negative system. This is one of those occasions on which Parliament must draw a line and say, "Thus far and no further."

Jeremy Browne: I congratulate both the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on making sense of the alphabet soup of legislative proposals that have been put before us. I am sure that all hon. Members who have attended the debate are now much clearer about where we stand and the features of the proposals that we are considering.
	I start with the view that was articulated by the hon. and learned Gentleman: I am suspicious of untrammelled and unfettered Executive power and authority. It is increasingly a feature of the Government's legislation that power is vested in the Secretary of State without as much reference to Parliament as I would like. There is particular cause for concern, because Parliament will not be fully scrutinising decisions taken in this top-down system involving so-called regional offender managers who will be imposing their will and that of the Secretary of State on localities that would be better suited to making such decisions themselves.
	I welcome the Minister's concession that orders that would not have received any parliamentary scrutiny at all will now receive a degree of such scrutiny. However, it was extraordinary that the Government even contemplated the way forward that they initially proposed. The fact that they thought that no system of parliamentary scrutiny would be necessary was perhaps indicative of the mindset of a Government who have been in power for more than a decade and are more concerned about making legislation efficient for the convenience of Ministers than about elected Members' ability to scrutinise the Government effectively. I have a bias towards proper scrutiny of the Government. Ministers should welcome the burden of that scrutiny, because it adds to the quality of legislation. For that reason, although I welcome the Government's modest step in the right direction, I think that the Minister should be willing to take a bigger, bolder and more ambitious step by allowing the use of the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure. If the matter is pressed to a Division, I will vote accordingly.

David Hanson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I have accepted the other place's proposal that parliamentary scrutiny of these matters is required. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that there is a need for such scrutiny. The simple difference between us is whether that scrutiny should be carried out under the affirmative or the negative procedure.
	Given the amount of such parliamentary scrutiny that might be required, the time that that might take in the House and the fact that these issues will often be uncontroversial, I thought that it would be better to use the negative procedure. If people are concerned about the issue, they can pray against the order and it can be debated and determined by the House.

Peter Bone: I hope that the Minister agrees that just because the order is prayed against does not necessarily mean that it will be scrutinised.

David Hanson: I accept that, and I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. However, I must tell the House, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Taunton that if the matter was controversial, there would be an opportunity to debate it on the negative procedure. I am simply trying to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny takes place if needed. I have moved my position. I have not moved as far as another place would wish, but I have tried to suggest a helpful compromise.

Edward Garnier: Conversely, does the Minister not accept that if it is an uncontroversial matter but is none the less to be dealt with under the affirmative procedure, the House will not delay it? It could appear on the Order Paper in such a way that it does not upset the business managers—we would not want to do that, would we?

David Hanson: As a former business manager in another life, I certainly would not want to have been upset in that way, nor would I wish to upset my colleagues on this occasion. There is a disagreement between us and, as ever, I suggest that we test whether the affirmative procedure is appropriate. I urge the House to support Government amendment (a).
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Responsibility for ensuring the provision of probation services

Lords amendment: No. 4

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 15, 16 and Government amendments (a) to (g) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 39 to 41.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm for the benefit of all hon. Members that Government amendment (a), which we discussed in the previous group of amendments, will be dealt with at the end of proceedings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is true. We always debate one amendment or new clause, and discuss other things at the same time, then vote on the amendment that we are debating. We take the other things as they come, in their normal order, on the amendment paper.

David Hanson: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This group of amendments is the result of valuable discussions both here and in another place. Concerns had been expressed that non-public sector providers might not be required to reach the same standards as the public sector, so we have provided safeguards on standards and training. The Secretary of State must now publish guidelines on the qualifications, experience or training for staff working directly with offenders, and he must publish national standards for the management of offenders. The Bill ensures that both training guidelines and the national standards will apply to all providers as appropriate. We have provided safeguards in respect of local accountability, and we have responded to the concerns of staff and trade unions. The Bill has been greatly improved by the addition of those provisions, which I commend to the House.

Edward Garnier: While the official Opposition may disagree with points of detail, I understand from those who know more about national bargaining and such matters that the National Association of Probation Officers and others are content with the structure that the Government have provided. In so far as they deal with national pay bargaining, the national regulatory framework that deals with the disciplining and regulation of providers of probation services, and so on, the amendments are acceptable.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Meaning of "the probation purposes"

Lords amendment: No. 1.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, 17 to 19, 21, 24 to 34, 37, 42 to 46 and 47, Government consequential (a) and Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 56.

David Hanson: The amendments are all relatively minor, technical and consequential, and I do not propose to speak to them individually. I believe that they will attract no controversy, and I commend them to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 8 disagreed to.
	 Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 9 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 15 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 16 and Government amendments (a) to (g) thereto agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 23 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 34 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment: No. 35.

Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) thereto be made:— [Claire Ward.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 127.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 38 disagreed to.
	 Remaining Lords amendments, and consequential Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 47, agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 6, 9, 12, 13, 22, 23 and 38; Mr. Jeremy Browne, Mr. Alan Campbell, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. David Hanson and Lynda Waltho; Mr. David Hanson to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.— [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will take motions 6, 7 and 8 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Republic of Albania) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

Electronic Communications

That the draft Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved. —[Alison Seabeck.]
	 Question agreed to.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Electoral Commissioners

Motion  made and Question put forthwith,  pursuant to Order [11 July] and Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as Electoral Commissioners—
	(1) Maxwell Marshall Caller CBE for the period ending on 31st December 2011;
	(2) Henrietta Campbell CB for the period ending on 31st December 2011;
	(3) Ian Maxwell Kelsall OBE with effect from 19th January 2008 for the period ending on 31st December 2012; and
	(4) John McCormick with effect from 19th January 2008 for the period ending on 31st December 2012.— [Alison Seabeck.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Stability and Convergence Programmes

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 6801/07 to No. 6809/07, No. 6812/07 to No. 6819/07 and Corrigendum 1, No. 6820/07 to No. 6821/07, No. 6823/07 and No. 7863/07 to No. 7867/07, Council Opinions on the Updated Stability and Convergence Programmes of each Member State except Austria and the Czech Republic; and supports a prudent interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact which takes into account the level of debt, the economic cycle and public investment. —[Alison Seabeck.]
	 Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,

Delegated Legislation Committees

That the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Hutton relating to Financial Assistance to Industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved. —[Alison Seabeck.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

Council Tax

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for this opportunity to present a petition on the important subject of the council tax, the level of which has almost doubled in the past decade. The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents of the Taunton constituency and others,
	Declares that the petitioners are extremely concerned that the determination of Council Tax levels in Taunton Deane and nationally do not fairly reflect the ability of citizens to pay
	Further notes that pensioners and those on a low income are especially disadvantaged as they have to pay a larger proportion of their income towards Council Tax than those with higher incomes
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to abolish the Council Tax and replace it with a system that reflects the ability to pay.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Crown Post Offices (Disabled Access)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Gordon Marsden: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the issues arising from the proposed transfer of Crown post offices to WH Smith. Several colleagues and I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs on the subject. The issues arise from the fact that the Post Office has reached a franchise agreement with WH Smith; it is proposed that from September this year about 70 Crown post offices be closed, and their services provided by WH Smith stores nearby. There have already been trials involving six Crown post offices.
	The issues are inevitably difficult and controversial for local communities, and there has been a lot of concern and disquiet about the way in which the process has been managed. In Blackpool, for example, there has been much concern about the fact that the Abingdon street post office, which has been a central feature of Blackpool for nearly 60 years, and which is a listed building, will no longer provide its services. There are broader issues to do with the abandonment of a prime town centre site, and the transfer of services to a less well known one, and there are concerns about the position of staff, which the Communication Workers Union and others have already raised. However, I want to focus on the proposals' implications for access for people with disabilities or mobility difficulties, and for people who have children and use buggies or other things of that nature.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and I have met representatives from WH Smith and post office staff in Blackpool on several occasions, and we have visited the proposed site. There is real concern, and it is shared by a number of other hon. Members; as I have said, we set out those concerns in a letter that the Minister received earlier this week. The changes will cause further pressures, too. A 20 per cent. reduction in counter size is proposed in Blackpool, which will cause difficulties. In addition, a number of the WH Smith stores that are part of the franchise proposals have not included the provision of adequate access for disabled customers in their plans. In Blackpool, the post office counters will be in the basement of the WH Smith Bank Hey street store, but post office and WH Smith staff agree that the lift is likely to be too small for many wheelchair users.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform last week a similar issue in respect of the WH Smith branch in Brighton, in Churchill square, where the facilities are also located in the basement and although there is an escalator facility, it goes down only and not up.
	Many vulnerable groups, including older and disabled customers, use the existing post office facilities. They carry out everyday tasks there. Often the Crown offices provide a hub for personal finance and benefit collection. In Blackpool, the Abingdon street post office, to which I have already referred, borders on a well known indoor market. It is opposite the famous Winter Gardens conference centre and the town centre church. The proposed replacement at Bank Hey street is much further away and is in no sense part of the centre of the town. I believe that the franchise agreement could have a negative impact on many of the consumer groups that I have mentioned if the issues of access are not properly addressed by the Post Office and by WH Smith before any transfer of services takes place.
	I shall quote for the Minister comments that I have received in the past couple of days. One is from the director of Age Concern in Blackpool, Ruth Lambert, who says:
	"I am totally at a loss as to why the Post Office has failed to take its elderly customers into consideration in this move. The WH Smith store is in a basement. There is a small lift that cannot hold more than one wheelchair at a time. What does this mean for people who need carers or for large groups of customers who have mobility problems?"
	She goes on to make a point that might not be immediately apparent:
	"The new site is much closer to the sea and therefore the wind can be a real challenge to elderly people. WH Smith is also a long walk from the nearest bus stop and this will be a big challenge to any person, elderly or not, who suffers with limited mobility."
	That view is echoed in the letter that Blackpool council sent to the Post Office, protesting at the proposed relocation, in which it said that the relocation to the basement of WH Smith is
	"wholly unsuitable for reasons of accessibility for disabled and elderly people, reduced floor space on what is currently available, and general potential quality of service compared to the Abingdon street facility."
	About 22 per cent. of the adult population of the UK are classed as disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—that is, just under 10 million adults. It is not just customers with mobility problems who may be affected by the changes. Customers who are blind, partially sighted or deaf will also face challenges. The Post Office has very good provision of induction loops for hearing aids, as well as visual indicators for deaf customers, but no guarantees have been given so far that that will be the case for the post office counters in the WH Smith stores. I have been in conversation with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and they have both expressed their concerns.
	The Post Office also has a varying—at least by region—but fairly solid track record of ensuring fair and equal access for blind customers. With the introduction of chip and pin services last year, all stores including WH Smith now operate that system. RNIB advised the Post Office on the accessibility of chip and pin pads, and the Post Office consulted RNIB, but RNIB's concern is that WH Smith has not so far consulted and may not consult on any future changes to chip and pin to accommodate blind and partially sighted people.
	That inevitably raises the issue of staff experience in these areas. There has already been significant controversy about the fact that because the sum that will be paid to the new WH Smith staff is considerably less per hour than that paid to current Post Office employees, the likelihood is that the vast majority of the staff in the proposed new branches will be new staff. My local newspaper, the Blackpool  Gazette, today reveals that
	"The stationery giant"—
	that is, WH Smith—
	"has advertised sales assistant posts at its Bank Hey Street store. . .
	The wage offered is 12p above the national minimum wage at £5.65 per hour."
	That is reckoned to be just under half of what current workers are paid at Abingdon street. I am not asking the Minister to comment on whether that is a good and acceptable wage for the service that is proposed, but it is fairly obvious that the vast majority of Crown post office staff, certainly in the case of Blackpool, are unlikely to transfer in those circumstances, and there will therefore be a big issue as regards new staff. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and I have pressed WH Smith and the Post Office on the training facilities available for that purpose in the limited time span for the transfer, we have not received very satisfactory answers.
	Blackpool, in particular, has a high number of tourists and visitors during the peak holiday season, many of whom need and want to use post office services during their stay. As a result, the access problems of WH Smith stores in Blackpool, Carlisle, Ilford, Brighton and elsewhere, which already affect disabled, old and vulnerable customers, will be exacerbated during peak visitor times in seaside and coastal towns. That has moved other hon. Members to join me in expressing these concerns. I remind the Minister that among the other Crown post offices on the list for closure are Bournemouth, Canterbury, Folkestone and Great Yarmouth.
	The Government are the sole shareholder in Royal Mail, and the Post Office is therefore classed as a public authority. All such bodies are subject to the disability equality duty, or DED, which is meant to ensure that all public bodies pay due regard to the promotion of equality for disabled people in every area of their work. Forty-five thousand public bodies across the UK are covered by the DED, many of which should have produced and published a disability equality scheme, or DES, by 4 December 2006, including the Post Office. Generally, the DES is intended to promote a duty for equality of opportunity between disabled people and other citizens, to eliminate discrimination and harassment, to promote positive attitudes to disabled people, and to take into account any impairment. Specifically, the Post Office is required by regulation, as part of the DED, to produce and publish a DES that is supposed to be drawn up in consultation with disabled people who are Post Office stakeholders and include staff and customers.
	For these purposes, the franchise agreement is exactly the same as contracting out by a public body. The Post Office is contracting out its services to WH Smith, and WH Smith is therefore bound by the same conditions as the Post Office in relation to the DED. Regrettably, however, there are few signs so far that WH Smith is taking that responsibility seriously. Central to the DED in relation to the proposed transfer of service from the Post Office to WH Smith is the requirement on public authorities to conduct a full disability equality impact assessment when there are any proposed changes to service delivery. Transferring the products and services of the Post Office, a public authority, into the basement of another building, as is the case in Blackpool, will have a significant impact on service delivery. The DES should therefore state clearly how the Post Office will conduct an impact assessment in Blackpool and elsewhere. I ask the Minister urgently to ensure that that takes place not only in Blackpool but in the other locations that are earmarked for closure.
	The Disability Rights Commission, with which I have been in contact, is not aware of any up-to-date assessment that has been made in respect of the schemes for transfer. The DRC has the power to take legal action where public authorities fail to carry out their responsibilities under the DED, and those authorities may then be subject to judicial review by the DRC.
	Those are the potential legal implications, but my question is this: where is the proactive element in this transfer? Why have not the Post Office and WH Smith already had this proper consultation with stakeholders? That concern is shared by organisations representing older people. Gordon Lishman, the director general of Age Concern, has said:
	"Many older people consider their post office to be a lifeline...If a post office must be relocated within another business to avoid closure, the expertise and skills of staff must continue to be provided. The post office services must also be in an accessible position within the business; this is particularly important for older people who may have mobility problems."
	The senior policy officer at Help the Aged, Alan Burnett, said:
	"Help the Aged are concerned about these proposals and believe that the devil is in the detail. Older people must be consulted and the needs of the most vulnerable must be considered when making changes to the post office."
	It may be said that these are matters of detail between WH Smith and the Post Office and not, therefore, a direct responsibility of Ministers and officials. However, WH Smith and the Post Office have so far manifestly failed to address the issues proactively. To give one example, when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood originally spoke to local staff about the problem of a significant number of people who use wheelchairs not being able to get into the lift to the basement—it was generally agreed to be too small for motorised wheelchairs—one of them said, "Oh well, if they turn up like that, we'll just have to transfer them into smaller wheelchairs." I submit that that is not a hopeful sign in the course of the transfer of a culture of respect for people with problems of mobility and disability.
	In any case, broader policy issues are raised that are a matter for the Government, as sole shareholder in Royal Mail. This Government have placed strong emphasis on disability issues since 1997, and I am proud of their record in that respect. They have supported people with disabilities; introduced a range of policies protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of disability; helped more people with disabilities to find and stay in work; and supported those whose disabilities mean that they are unable to work. In April 2000, the Government established the Disability Rights Commission, and they implemented duties under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to improve disabled people's access to goods, services and facilities. Since 1999, service providers have had to make reasonable adjustments to the way in which they provide their services so that disabled people can use them. Since 2004, they have had to take reasonable steps to tackle physical features that continue to make it impossible, or unreasonably difficult, for disabled people to access a service. All of that is very good.
	I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment—not least because he has come to his new Department from the Cabinet Office where there was a strong, groundbreaking focus on social inclusion under the previous Government. The establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights should send out a strong message to disabled groups and others that the Government take equality seriously, but I am concerned that the fiasco of the franchise agreement could damage that track record.
	I believe that if we will the ends, we have to will the means. That means that the Government have to live up to their responsibilities as a shareholder, and more broadly, promote a non-discriminatory and non-excluding programme. The range of concerns that I and other hon. Members have, and the complaints and protests from throughout the country, show that the circumstances in Blackpool are not an isolated incident. The worst possible thing for any transfer of services between the Post Office and WH Smith would be if customers became fraught with real difficulties that led to a host of legal challenges on the grounds of non-implementation of the DDA.
	Therefore, I ask the Minister not to allow the Post Office and WH Smith to duck the issue any longer. I ask him to ensure that the Government look urgently at the situation in all the Crown post offices scheduled for transfer to WH Smith, and to do the assessment on access which should already have taken place. I ask also that they consult and make whatever adjustments the letter and spirit of the DDA require, and that they do so properly and comprehensively, involving stakeholder groups in places where the changes are proposed, even if it means delays in the handover process.
	In the event of any transfer in Blackpool, I ask the Government to consider specifically providing extra lift provision and making other adjustments to render the problems that we have identified less acute.
	Whatever service changes take place, there should be no outsourcing or franchising of basic equality principles that might result in preventing or making difficult access and provision for the elderly, those who have disabilities or anyone with access or mobility problems.

Patrick McFadden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on securing this evening's debate. I know that he cares deeply about his constituents and wants to secure the best possible access for them to Post Office services. That was evident from his speech. As he said, he and other hon. Members have already written to me about the issue.
	I want to begin by setting out a few general points on Post Office Ltd's decision to enter into a franchise agreement with WH Smith, and then to try to tackle some of the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised about the Blackpool transfer, especially disability access, on which he focused.
	The future of the post office network is a subject of great relevance to all hon. Members, irrespective of whether we have a Crown post office in our constituencies. The Post Office is run on an arm's length basis and Ministers do not make day-to-day decisions about the location of individual post office branches. However, I emphasise that the Government share hon. Members' concerns about securing a sustainable future for the Post Office and ensuring reasonable access to Post Office services for the public.
	The decision by Post Office Ltd to enter into a commercial agreement with WH Smith has generated a great deal of interest and debate. It is not the first time that Post Office services have been shared with other retail space. Post offices already share space with retail networks such as the Co-op, Martin McColl and Spar. More than 95 per cent. of post offices in this country are run by private operators, often with a shared retail space.
	There are approximately 450 Crown post offices, and they lost a combined total of £70 million last year and some £50 million the year before that. The network is therefore undergoing change, partly as a result of wider changes to the way in which we go about our business. For example, many of us choose to pay bills by direct debit; nine out of 10 people approaching retirement choose to have pensions paid into a bank account; communications technologies have undergone a revolution in recent years, and some 4 million fewer people use post offices compared with only two years ago. Clearly, that is not sustainable, and the Government support Post Office Ltd's policy for reducing the losses. It includes maintaining a core network of Crown post offices and franchising branches when opportunities arise and when that would benefit future post office provision. We have welcomed the commercial deal between Post Office Ltd and WH Smith, which was announced on 19 April, because it will secure the retention of a main post office service in each of those areas. That point should not be lost in the debate about Crown branches.
	As my hon. Friend said, six pilot projects of such transfers were carried out before the current franchising arrangement was announced. My understanding is that the majority of customers in those pilots welcomed the pleasant environment and the customer service. They also welcomed the extended opening hours for the service. I understand that that factor will apply to the Blackpool transfer.
	In some cases, the franchising of a Crown post office has been portrayed as a closure. I accept that my hon. Friend did not intend to do that. However, there is an important difference—franchising is not closure. Without the sort of deal that we are considering, a question mark would have hung over the future many Crown post offices. The Post Office is seeking to create more certainty about the future, and in particular about how the main Post Office service will be provided in our town centres. The arrangement brings a level of certainty about the future of the 70 offices concerned.
	Let me turn to some of the specifics that my hon. Friend mentioned. He expressed concern about the quality of service under the new arrangement. This is an important issue and he is right to raise it, but it would not be right to conclude that franchising will automatically lead to a reduction in quality of service. We should remember that only about 3 per cent. of posts offices are Crown post offices, directly managed and staffed by Post Office Ltd employees. I am sure that none of us would suggest that the equally hard-working sub-postmasters and mistresses and their staff who work in the remaining 97 per cent. of the branches are providing an inferior service. Franchisees are bound by stringent contractual requirements to ensure that service standards remain at the same high level after transferring from direct management of Post Office Ltd. Staff will be trained by Post Office Ltd and expected to maintain the standards of service that the public have a right to expect.
	My hon. Friend concentrated on access for people with disabilities. He is right to stress that it is important. Royal Mail Group has been working to the spirit of existing disability legislation, is committed to its being complied with and has a strong track record in improving and promoting positive attitudes. Post Office Ltd is committed to ensuring that disability access remains a priority. My understanding is that the issue has featured in discussions between the Post Office and WH Smith. The two organisations are working together to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure effective reasonable adjustment to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. My understanding is that WH Smith has spent about £1.5 million on improving access in stores and new sites opened since 2003, to meet DDA regulations.
	My hon. Friend pointed out that the space identified in the Blackpool store is in the basement. The same is true of a number of franchised post offices, where the space identified will be either on the first floor or in basement space. Post Office Ltd has given an assurance that the location of all branches will comply with the 1995 Act and be accessible to all customers. Arrangements will be in place to assist customers with special access needs in branches such as Blackpool, where the post office counter is not on the ground floor. I accept that my hon. Friend spoke about his own constituency, that he has visited the proposed new location and that I have not, so I tread carefully. However, I understand that there is a lift to help customers with disabilities. My hon. Friend has expressed concern, tonight and in his letter, about the quality of the lift. I understand that WH Smith plans to refurbish and redecorate it and to carry out any reasonable improvements to assist further those customers with disabilities.
	I understand that there is more queuing space in the WH Smith office than in the current office. In the event of a customer being for some reason unable to use the lift or the stairs to access the serving positions, arrangements will be available to ensure that they can be served by Post Office-trained staff on the ground floor. As one would expect from an established and prominent high street retailer, WH Smith is fully aware of its responsibilities under the 1995 Act and will ensure that the branch remains fully accessible for customers, including those with mobility problems.
	My hon. Friend has made clear his continuing concerns tonight. I am sure that both Post Office Ltd and WH Smith will read his speech. Ultimately, it is in no one's interests for customers to be discouraged from conducting their business or from having a less favourable experience of the service in future.
	In conclusion, the Post Office has been deprived of much needed investment over the years. The Government have put in some £2 billion since 1999 and we plan further investment in the future. The Post Office is now diversifying into providing foreign currency, fixed line telephone services and new products such as credit cards. Change is never easy and I appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment, reflected in his speech tonight, but franchising is neither new nor an enemy of Post Office services. In fact, it may be a crucial factor ensuring their survival.
	We value the social role of the Post Office, but we also accept that it operates in a competitive marketplace and that change means that it, too, will have to change in the future. I believe that we have set out a framework to create a stable network in the future, so that the Post Office can move forward with confidence and rise to the challenges ahead. I appreciate the difficulties at this time of change. I am sure that the Post Office will have heard my hon. Friend's points, but I hope that the arrangements—
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at  twenty-nine  minutes to Nine o'clock.

Deferred Division

Political Parties

That the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 141.

Question accordingly agreed to.